Alan Onstad v. Mary Wilkinson, et al


PER CURIAM OPINION FILED - THE COURT: Diana E. Murphy, Steven M. Colloton and Raymond W. Gruender (UNPUBLISHED); Denying [4070901-2] motion for appointment of counsel filed by Appellant Mr. Alan Cole Onstad. [4087929] [13-2760]

Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 13-2760 ___________________________ Alan Cole Onstad lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant v. Mary Ann Wilkinson, Clerk, Circuit Court, Lee County, Arkansas; Richard L. Proctor, Circuit Judge, Lee County, Arkansas; Lee County Arkansas lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Helena ____________ Submitted: October 9, 2013 Filed: October 22, 2013 [Unpublished] ____________ Before MURPHY, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Appellate Case: 13-2760 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/22/2013 Entry ID: 4087929 Alan Onstad appeals the district court’s1 preservice dismissal, with prejudice, of his amended 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint, essentially asserting that he was wrongfully denied in forma pauperis (IFP) status in state court, which prevented him from bringing a conditions-of-confinement case in state court. Upon careful de novo review, we conclude that the dismissal was proper. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A (in civil action in which prisoner seeks redress from governmental entity or officer or employee of governmental entity, court shall review complaint as soon as practicable and dismiss it if it is frivolous, malicious, fails to state claim, or seeks monetary relief from defendant who is immune); see also Cooper v. Schriro, 189 F.3d 781, 783 (8th Cir. 1999) (per curiam) (de novo review of § 1915A dismissal). Specifically, we agree with the district court that Onstad’s complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. See Williams v. McKenzie, 834 F.2d 152, 153-54 (8th Cir. 1987) (stating general rule that IFP litigant’s access to court is matter of privilege, not of right); cf. Murray v. Dosal, 150 F.3d 814, 817 (8th Cir. 1998) (per curiam) (noting that Supreme Court has never recognized unlimited rule that indigent plaintiffs at all times and in all cases have right to relief without payment of fees). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. We also deny Onstad’s motion for appointment of counsel. ______________________________ 1 The Honorable D.P. Marshall Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. -2- Appellate Case: 13-2760 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/22/2013 Entry ID: 4087929

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?