Pinson v. Snider et al

Filing 7

ORDER dismissing this action as of 2/27/14 by Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer on 3/18/14. (dkals, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 13-cv-01990-BNB
JEREMY PINSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
SEAN SNIDER,
ARMIJO,
J. GARNER,
R. HUDDLESTON,
JOHN DOES 1-6,
CHRISTOPHER SYNSVOLL, and
CLAY COOK,
Defendants.

ORDER DISMISSING CASE

Plaintiff is in the custody of the Federal Bureau of Prisons and currently is
incarcerated at ADX in Florence, Colorado. On February 27, 2014, Plaintiff submitted a
Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 6. The Court will construe the Motion as a Notice of
Voluntary Dismissal and dismiss the action for the following reasons.
Rule 41(a)(1)(A) provides that “the plaintiff may dismiss an action without a court
order by filing: (i) a notice of dismissal before the opposing party serves either an
answer or a motion for summary judgment . . . .” Defendant has not filed an answer in
this action. Further, a voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) is effective
immediately upon the filing of a written notice of dismissal, and no subsequent
court order is necessary. See 8-41 James Wm. Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice
§ 41.33(6)(a) (3d ed. 1997); Hyde Constr. Co. v. Koehring Co., 388 F.2d 501, 507 (10th
Cir. 1968). The case, therefore, will be closed as of February 27, 2014, the date the
Notice was filed with the Court. See Hyde Constr. Co., 388 F.2d at 507.

The Court, however, will also note the following. Mr. Pinson has a history of filing
voluntary dismissals and unexhausted claims in many of his cases. Since 2007, Mr.
Pinson has filed at least 136 civil cases in various federal district courts. Approximately
forty-three actions have been filed in this Court, of which twenty-three are prisoner
complaints. In thirty-one of the 136 cases, Mr. Pinson opted to voluntarily dismiss the
case. (See Attached Appendix). In several of these cases the request for voluntarily
dismissal was after the case had proceeded through briefing on a motion to dismiss and
several requests to amend had been filed. In other cases, the request to dismiss was
after a decision was entered denying a motion for injunctive relief. In a few cases, the
dismissal was because the case was going to be dismissed for failure to exhaust, for
failure to state a claim, or as legally frivolous. In Pinson v. Whetsel, et al., No. 06-cv01372-F (W.D. Okla. Feb. 21, 2007), Mr. Pinson conceded, after a motion for injunctive
relief was denied, that he elected to dismiss the case because he did not want to
acquire a strike.
Mr. Pinson’s voluntary dismissal in this action, like many of the previous
voluntary dismissals he has filed, is done with high disregard for the integrity of the
federal judiciary system. Mr. Pinson has asserted previously in this Court that he is well
versed on how to file and exhaust his administrative remedies. See Pinson v. Davis,
No. 11-cv-00608-WYD, ECF No. 15 at 6 (D. Colo. March 10, 2011). Mr. Pinson also
acknowledges he acts as a jailhouse lawyer, see Pinson v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, et
al., No. 11-cv-00768-LTB. Mr. Pinson’s professed knowledge of how to exhaust
administrative remedies, and the fact that on at least four occasions he has had a
complaint dismissed for failure to exhaust, see Pinson v. St. John, et al., No. 10-cv-

2

01832-RBP-HGD (N.D. Ala. Feb. 25, 2013); Pinson v. Fox, No. 07-cv-00646-MAC-ESH
(E.D. Tex. Feb. 5, 2008); Pinson v. Fe. Bureau of Prisons, et al., No. 07-cv-00346-RCKFG (E.D. Tex. Aug. 2, 2007); and Pinson v. Watkins, et al., No. 06-cv-00323-F (W.D.
Okla. May 9, 2007), calls into question his honesty and motive for filing unexhausted
claims in federal district courts.
Nonetheless, the Notice of Dismissal, will be entered pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
41(a)(1)(A)(i). Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that the Notice of Voluntary Dismissal, ECF No. 6, is effective as of
February 27, 2014, the date Plaintiff filed the Notice in this action.
DATED at Denver, Colorado, this 18th day of March, 2014.
BY THE COURT:

s/Craig B. Shaffer
United States Magistrate Judge

3

Appendix
Pinson v. Snider, et al., No. 13-cv-01990-BNB (D. Colo. Filed July 24, 2013) (claims
he was exposed to chemical agents; notice of voluntary dismissal because has not
exhausted administrative remedies);
Pinson v. Madison, et al., No. 13-cv-00157-LTB (D. Colo. Mar. 25, 2013) (originally
Pinson and Mr. Villatoro were plaintiffs to the action; Villatoro filed a notice of voluntary
dismissal and after Pinson was directed to file an amended complaint that stated how
he was in imminent danger of serious physical injury Pinson filed a notice of voluntary
dismissal; four months later both plaintiffs filed a motion to reinstate that was denied);
Pinson v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, et al., No. 11-cv-02112-LTB (D. Colo. Dec. 20,
2011) (claimed rights violated under Crime Victims Rights Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3771;
ordered to cure deficiencies and Pinson objected claiming $350 filing and PLRA does
not apply, and he does not have to submit his claims on Court-approved form, objection
was overruled; Pinson filed petition for writ with Tenth Circuit and motion for declaratory
relief to clarify if relief is available under § 3771; the court denied the declaratory motion;
Pinson then filed amended complaint that contained Eighth Amendment violation and §
3771 claim and court ordered Pinson to show cause why in forma pauperis should not
be denied under § 1915(g); Pinson then filed injunctive motion, motion to seal, motion
for subpoena deuces tecum and a response to show cause order; court considered all
filings and found no imminent danger and denied Pinson’s motion to reconsider denial
under § 1915(g); Pinson filed a notice of voluntary dismissal; Pinson then filed a notice
of appeal regarding the denial of § 1915 status and an amended complaint listing
sixteen defendants and asserting a laundry list of First, Fifth, and Eighth Amendment
claims), appeal dismissed, No. 12-1002 (10th Cir. Feb. 10, 2012) (ordered to pay fee in
full, failed to pay and dismissed for failure to prosecute);
Pinson v. McKnight, et al., No. 11-cv-02752-VEH-HGD (N.D. Ala. Aug. 18, 2011)
(notice of voluntary dismissal eleven days after files states is subject to § 1915(g) and
cannot pay fee in full;
Pinson v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, et al., No. 11-cv-00768-LTB (D. Colo. Aug. 15,
2011) (claims PTSD and bipolar with history of cooperating with law enforcement, is
known to have written critical published articles, sued prison officials, and acted as
jailhouse lawyer, as a result he has been transferred to ADX Florence where he is in
solitary confinement , housed by gang members, denied protective custody, allows
white supremists to threaten and use violence against other prisoners; and denied
prayer pie and ceremonial tobacco as part of his Native American religious practices;
filed motion to add parties and to supplement; court entered order to show cause why in
forma pauperis status should not be denied under § 1915(g); order to show cause
discharged because cases counting as strikes not final; Pinson then filed a notice of
voluntary dismissal);
Pinson v. Rathman, et al., No. 10-cv-02469-AKK-HGD (N.D. Ala. June 30) (claims
4

required to have cellmate even though most are violent and mentally ill and some gang
members in complaint and injunctive motion; in amended complaint claims was placed
in ambulatory restraints without clothing, linens, blankets, or property, denied meals,
denied psychiatric treatment, and was beaten; recommendation said no physical injury
and no excessive force; Pinson objected and filed amended complaint, but court
accepted recommendation and dismissed for failure to state claim), appeal dismissed,
No. 11-13287 (11th Cir. Aug. 17, 2011) (voluntary dismissal by Pinson-claims joint
stipulation);
Pinson v. Lappin, No. 11-cv-00854-HGD (N.D. Ala. May 24, 2011) (claims posttraumatic stress disorder and bipolar disorder, designated for placement at ADX in
Florence, Colorado, in retaliation for filing lawsuits, is X-member of Sureno gang and
not properly protected from gangs; transferred from D.D.C. to N.D. of Ala. for proper
venue; Pinson asks for transfer to Colorado after transfer to Ala, which Ala. did;
recommendation for transfer entered and Pinson filed notice of voluntary dismissal
because he filed in Colorado11-cv-768, which was filed on Mar. 25, 2011, before 11-cv854 was filed);
Pinson v. Rathman, et al., No. 11-cv-00278-KOB-HGD (N.D. Ala. Mar. 2, 2011)
(voluntary dismissal);
Pinson v. Keffer, et al., No. 10-cv-01229-F (W.D. Okla. Feb. 25, 2011) (Pinson was
denied leave to proceed because subject to § 1915(g) restriction but given an
opportunity to amend and state imminent danger but then Pinson filed notice of
voluntary dismissal);
Pinson v. Fed. Bureau of Investigation, et al., No. 10-cv-01917-RBP-HGD (N.D. Ala.
Sept. 8, 2010) (filed complaint and motion for injunctive relief claimed FBI confiscated
his property as part of a criminal investigation for attempted murder and repeatedly
questioned him, denied his right to an attorney; told to pay initial fee, filed notice of no
funds, and then filed a notice of voluntary dismissal);
Pinson v. Lappin, et al., No. 09-cv-02001-CLS-HGD (N.D. Ala. Nov. 16, 2009)
(transferred from the D. D.C. was case no. 09-cv-1744; N.D. Ala. ordered to cure
deficient pleading and Pinson filed notice of voluntary dismissal);
Pinson v. Norwood, et al., 08-cv-00660-AHS-JEM (C.D. Cali. Nov. 10, 2009)) (Pinson
was granted his request for voluntary dismissal; claimed prison staff took all of his legal
papers in this case and refused to feed or medicate him for twenty-four hours, his
weakness and light-headedness renders him unable to participate in case; Pinson then
filed motion to vacate dismissal claiming he dismissed because cellmate threatened to
kill him if he did not dismiss the action; motion to vacate denied because Pinson’s
credibility undermined by the BOP records and the authenticity of his exhibit supporting
his claims, ECF No. 103), aff’d, No. 10-56049 (9th Cir. Jan. 12, 2011) (district court’s
denial of motion to vacate not abuse of discretion because evidence by defendants
5

either undermines Pinson’s allegations or demonstrates fabrication);
Pinson v. Warden, FCC Coleman, No. 09-cv-00118-WTH-GRJ (M.D. Fla. Apr. 20,
2009) (after case was placed on docket as Track One case and Pinson was directed to
serve notice to all parties of designation Pinson filed notice of voluntary dismissal
claiming “alternative resolution” by parties and claims are moot);
Pinson v. Cubb, et al., No. 09-cv-00697 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 8, 2009) (complained of side
effects of prescribed drug to “stop the violence”; Within two weeks after case filed
Pinson filed notice of voluntary dismissal);
Pinson v. Revell, et al., No. 08-cv-01023-MSK-BNB (D. Colo. Feb. 23, 2009) (after
102 entries on the docket, including first voluntary dismissal after filing first amended
complaint; notice of voluntary dismissal after 102 entries on docket was granted);
Pinson v. Shaw, et al., No. 07-cv-00572-F (W.D. Okla. Feb. 23, 2009) (after 135
entries on the docket, including filing two amended complaints, a motion to dismiss,
extension of time to effect service, motion to amend complaint, motions to consolidate
with 08-cv-198-F, request to depose witnesses, objections to magistrate
recommendation, and motions to compel, Pinson filed a notice of voluntary dismissal
claiming denial of access to his legal papers, which the court granted finding defendants
had not filed an answer to amended complaint or motion for summary judgment);
Pinson, et al., v. Kleckner, et al., No. 09-cv-00063-WTH-GRJ (M.D. Fla. Feb. 17,
2009) (claims a fire was started in his cell and prison staff failed to protect Pinson and
Hernandez-Cadena, coplaintiff, from smoke inhalation and burns and delayed removing
Plaintiff from the damaged cell; court dismissed case for failure to state a claim because
remedies were not exhausted), appeal dismissed, No. 09-10996 (11th Cir. Mar. 17,
2009) (notice of voluntary dismissal);
Pinson v. Fauver, et al., No. 08-cv-03176 (S.D. Tex. Jan. 12, 2009) (laundry list of
claims; several injunctive motions, two amended complaint, motion for recusal, then
files a motion to withdraw second injunctive and amend motions; Pinson files a notice of
voluntary dismissal once he is transferred to other prison facility);
Pinson v. McGehee, et al., No. 08-cv-00062-MAC-ESH (E.D. Tex. Aug. 6, 2008)
(claimed fell from top bunk during epileptic seizure; failed to pay initial partial filing fee;
recommended dismissal; fee paid; Pinson then filed motion to amend and subsequently
a notice of voluntary dismissal);
Pinson v. Gutierrez, et al., No. 07-cv-00580-RC-KFG (E.D. Tex. June 30, 2008)
(claims defendants (other inmates) physically and sexually assaulted him; although
notice of voluntary dismissal filed on October 24, 2007, the court dismissed the action
for want of prosecution;
Pinson v. Watkins, et al., No. 08-cv-00556-F (W.D. Okla. June 19, 2008) (Staff at
6

Oklahoma Department of Corrections failed to protect form gangs; transferred and
Pinson filed notice of voluntary dismissal);
Pinson v. Porter, et al., No. 08-cv-00198-F (W.D. Okla. June 2, 2008) (Pinson
acknowledges same claims as asserted in Case No. 07-572-F in W. D. Okla.; action
dismissed in part as repetitive of 07-572 and found remaining claims not proper for
joinder in 07-572 as Pinson requests; Pinson then filed a notice of voluntary dismissal);
Pinson v. Revell, et al., No. 08-cv-00130-ZLW (D. Colo. Mar. 3, 2008) (claims in
segregation and has received mental health treatment since he was 10 but now has
been denied psychological treatment and was denied access to legal material for his
case in Okla, 07-572-F; filed injunctive motion regarding conspiracy to kill him by staff
and inmates, inmate beat him, lieutenant told him to drop lawsuit or he would be
harmed and he dismissed Case No. 07-cv-2420-MSK-BNB, and lieutenant told inmates
he was snitch and going to USP Terre Haute where he will be in substantial risk of
harm; Pinson filed a request to file second amended complaint to merge this action with
08-cv-00177-MSK-BNB and 07-cv-02420-MSK-BNB, even though he submitted a
motion to dismiss these two cases; Pinson then filed a motion for joinder of Robert
Kilgore and his case, Case No. 08-cv-00263-ZLW; Pinson then filed a notice of
voluntary dismissal);
Pinson v. Revell, et al., No. 07-cv-02420-MSK-BNB (D. Colo. Feb. 8, 2008) (first filed
a petition for writ of mandamus, then claimed needed telephonic conference because
life in danger, then submitted a letter that staff beat him up and told him to drop lawsuit,
which he filed a notice of voluntary dismissal but withdrew the notice and complied with
the court’s earlier order to cure; filed an injunctive motion claiming he was government
witness and needs to be protected, then filed a notice that he had been beaten
unconscious and cut with a razor and forced to have a cell mate; Pinson again files
motion to dismiss, but withdraws it, and also filed another motion for injunctive relief,
followed by another motion for emergency order and hearing, and a motion for default;
finally on February 8, 2009, Pinson files another motion for voluntary dismissal,
claiming amicable informal resolution of issues under review);
Pinson v. Fox, No. 07-cv-00575-MAC-KFG (E.D. Tex. Jan. 17, 2008) (filed motion to
seal and TRO; motion was granted; Pinson was transferred to other facility and
subsequently filed notice of voluntary dismissal);
Pinson v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, et al., No. 07-cv-00346-RC-KFG (E.D. Tex. Aug.
2, 2007) (recommendation to dismiss for failure to exhaust remedies; Pinson then filed
notice of voluntary dismissal);
Pinson v. Whetsel, et al., No. 07-cv-00276-F (W.D. Okla. Apr. 25, 2007) (challenging
conditions of the Oklahoma County Detention Center; filed two motions for injunctive
relief, a motion to amend, failed to provide account statement and after told a second
time it is his responsibility to pay the initial filing fee and no other inmates where he is
housed have expressed problems to the court regarding jail staff refusing to remit fees
7

Pinson entered a voluntary notice of dismissal);
Pinson v. United States Marshal Svc., No. 07-cv-00148-F (W.D. Okla. Feb. 27, 2007)
(recommendation that action be dismissed with prejudice for failure to state claim, lack
of subject matter jurisdiction, and as duplicitous; Pinson filed notice of voluntary
dismissal);
Pinson v. Whetsel, et al., No. 06-cv-01372-F (W.D. Okla. Feb. 21, 2007) (claiming
failure to protect; Pinson submitted six injunctive motions, two motions for issuance of
subpoenas before service, sought joinder of five other inmates; Pinson filed a notice of
voluntary dismissal after injunctive motions were denied and stated that he was
dismissing the case because it was clear he would not prevail on the merits and he did
not want to acquire a “strike” and, therefore, would elect to raise issues in the future);
Pinson v. Mullins, No. 06-cv-00017-FHS-SPS (E.D. Okla. Mar. 17, 2006) (failure to
protect claims in complaint and injunctive motion; after Pinson was told to file in forma
pauperis motion or pay filing fee he filed a notice of voluntary dismissal);
Pinson v. Miller, et al., No. 05-cv-01047-F (W.D. Okla. Oct. 31, 2005) (failure to
protect claims; filed two injunctive motions, hearing was set, then Pinson was
transferred to another facility; never paid initial partial filing fee and filed a notice of
voluntary dismissal, which was granted by the court).

8