Fenner v. Bush et al
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 2 Complaint filed by Jason E Fenner. Objections to R&R due by 12/18/2008. Signed by Magistrate Judge Henry L. Jones, Jr on 12/4/08. (bkp)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION JASON E. FENNER, ADC #127315 4:08CV04164JLH/HLJ GEORGE W. BUSH, et al. DEFENDANTS PLAINTIFF
PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS INS T RUCT IONS The following recommended disposition has been sent to United States District Court Chief Judge J. Leon Holmes. Any party may serve and file written objections to this recommendation. Objections should be specific and should include the factual or legal basis for the objection. If the objection is to a factual finding, specifically identify that finding and the evidence that supports your objection. An original and one copy of your objections must be received in the office of the United States District Court Clerk no later than eleven (11) days from the date of the findings and recommendations. The copy will be furnished to the opposing party. Failure to file timely objections may result in waiver of the right to appeal questions of fact. If you are objecting to the recommendation and also desire to submit new, different, or additional evidence, and to have a hearing for this purpose before the District Judge, you must, at the same time that you file your written objections, include the following: 1. 2. Why the record made before the Magistrate Judge is inadequate. Why the evidence proffered at the hearing before the District Judge (if such a hearing is granted) was not offered at the hearing before the Magistrate Judge. The detail of any testimony desired to be introduced at the hearing before the District Judge in the form of an offer of proof, and a copy, or the original, of any documentary or
other non-testimonial evidence desired to be introduced at the hearing before the District Judge. From this submission, the District Judge will determine the necessity for an additional evidentiary hearing, either before the Magistrate Judge or before the District Judge. Mail your objections and "Statement of Necessity" to: Clerk, United States District Court Eastern District of Arkansas 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite A149 Little Rock, AR 72201-3325 DISPOSITION Plaintiff, a state inmate incarcerated at the Maximum Security Unit of the Arkansas Department of Correction (ADC), has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis in this lawsuit filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(a) and 1915A(b)(1),(2), the Court is required to screen complaints seeking relief against an officer or employee of a governmental entity, and must dismiss a complaint if the claims raised are legally frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim or seek monetary relief from a defendant immune from such relief. The test for determining if an action is frivolous
is whether the plaintiff can make a rational argument on the facts or law in support of his claim. The term "frivolous" refers to the "inarguable legal conclusion" and the "fanciful factual allegation." Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. § 319 (1989). In addition, a complaint or portion thereof should only be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted if it appears beyond doubt that plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of the claim or claims that would entitle him to relief. See Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984). Having reviewed plaintiff's complaint, the Court finds that it must be dismissed for failure to
state a claim. In order to state a claim for relief under § 1983, one must allege that a person acting under the color of state law deprived the plaintiff of some Constitutional right. Griffin-El v. MCI Telecommunications Corp., et al., 835 F.Supp. 1114, 1118 (E.D.MO 1993). Plaintiff states in his complaint that he is responsible for eleven inventions which currently are not patented, due to his lack of funds. Plaintiff alleges defendants (who include President Bush, Secretary of State Rice, Former Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, Governor Mike Beebe, Attorney General Dustin McDaniel, three named employees of the ADC and numerous John and Jane Does) have failed to assist him in finding the appropriate sources of funds for patenting his inventions. However, plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to the free cost of patents for his inventions or to the defendants' assistance in achieving such, and therefore, his allegations do not state a constitutional claim for relief. Therefore, the Court finds that plaintiff's complaint should be
dismissed for failure to state a claim.1 Accordingly, IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915A(b)(1), plaintiff's complaint against defendants is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim. The Court hereby certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915 (a)(3) that an in forma pauperis appeal taken from this Memorandum and Order and accompanying Judgment dismissing this action is considered frivolous and not in good faith.
This dismissal constitutes a "strike" within the meaning of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), 28 U.S.C § 1915(g), which provides that a prisoner may not file an in forma pauperis civil rights action or appeal if the prisoner has, on three or more prior occasions, filed an action or appeal that was dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim, unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. In addition, the Court notes that two prior cases filed by plaintiff were dismissed as frivolous and for failure to state a claim, which also constitute "strikes" within the meaning of the PLRA. See Fenner v. Doe, et al., 4:05cv00486 and Fenner v. Great Britain, 4:07cv00686.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 4th day of December, 2008.
___________________________________ United States Magistrate 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?