Onstad v. Wilkinson et al
ORDER Directing Monthly Payments be made from Prison Account of Alan Cole Onstad and assessing an initial partial filing fee of $6.30. The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Order to the ADC Offices and to the Warden, EARU, P.O. Box 180, Brickeys, AR 72320. This case is dismissed because it fails as a matter of law and cannot be fixed by any amendments. Plaintiff's motions for a preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order and for court-appointed counsel are denied as moot. Signed by Judge D. P. Marshall Jr. on 2/7/13. (kpr)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
ALAN COLE ONSTAD
MARY ANN WILKINSON and
RICHARD L. PROCTOR
1. Alan Cole Onstad, an Arkansas Department of Correction inmate,
moves to proceed in forma pauperis. The average monthly deposit in his
account at the East Arkansas Unit for the six months before his application
was submitted was $31.50. Document No.1. Onstad's IFP motion, Document
No. 1, is therefore granted. He must pay over time nonetheless. His present
custodian, the Warden of the East Arkansas Region Unit or his designee, will
collect from Onstad's prison trust account the $350.00 filing fee by collecting
the $6.30 initial partial filing fee, as well as monthly payments amounting to
20% of the preceding month's income credited to his prison trust account each
time the amount in the account exceeds $10.00. Payments should be clearly
identified by the name and number assigned to this action.
The Clerk of Court is directed to send a copy of this Order to the
Arkansas Department of Correction Trust Fund Centralized Banking Office,
P.O. Box 8908, Pine Bluff, Arkansas 71611, the Arkansas Department of
Correction Compliance Division, P.O. Box 20550, Pine Bluff, Arkansas 71612,
and the Warden of the East Arkansas Regional Unit, Post Office Box 180,
Brickeys, Arkansas 72320.
2. This Court must also screen Onstad's complaint. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
Onstad claims that Lee County Circuit Court Clerk Mary Ann Wilkinson
improperly denied his application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis in a
state-court proceeding in October 2012. He names as Defendants Wilkinson
and Lee County Circuit Judge Richard Proctor, requesting injunctive relief
and money damages against both.
Assuming all allegations in the complaint are true, Onstad still has not
stated a claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Wilkinson enjoys quasijudicial immunity in this case. Although Wilkinson notified Onstad that his
application for leave to proceed IFP was denied, she did not actually deny the
request. Document No.5, at 14. Rather, Judge Proctor found that Onstad was
not indigent and denied IFP status. Document No.5, at 13. Because Wilkinson
only communicated Judge Proctor's decision regarding Onstad's IFP
application, she is immune from liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Martin v.
Hendren, 127 F.3d 720, 721-22 (8th Cir. 1997); see also Geitz v. Overall, 62 Fed.
Appx. 744,746,2003 WL 186054, at **1-2 (8th Cir. 2003) (unpublished).
And Judge Proctor enjoys absolute immunity for his decision to deny
Onstad's application. Mireles v. Waco,502 U.S. 9,11-12 (1991). He decided as
circuit court judge with jurisdiction over Onstad's case. Judge Proctor may
have been mistaken about Onstad's financial situation.
protects judges against lawsuits for having made a mistake in judgment. Ibid.
All of Onstad's claims against Wilkinson and Judge Proctor are
dismissed with prejudice because they fail as a matter of law and cannot be
fixed by any amendments. This dismissal counts as a strike. See 28 U.S.C. §
1915(g). Subject to the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1996, this Court's
doors remain open to Onstad.
3. Onstad also has moved for a preliminary injunction or temporary
restraining order and for court-appointed counsel. Document Nos. 2 & 6.
Those motions are denied as moot.
D.P. Marshall Jr.
United States District Judge
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?