Frohwerk v. Unknown Officials of WCU
Filing
15
OPINION AND ORDER The Court DISMISSES the Plaintiffs complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). Signed by Judge Rudy Lozano on 10/17/11. cc: pltf(kjp)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
HAMMOND DIVISION
DAVID FROHWERK,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
vs.
UNKNOWN OFFICIALS OF
WCU,
Defendants.
CAUSE NO. 2:11-CV-210
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court sua sponte pursuant to 28
U.S.C. Section 1915A.
DISMISSES
the
For the reasons set forth below, the Court
Plaintiff’s
complaint
pursuant
to
28
U.S.C.
§
1915A(b)(1).
BACKGROUND
David Frohwerk, a state prisoner confined at the Westville
Correctional Facility (”WCF”), filed a complaint pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that WCF officials violated his right to
access to the court by forcing him to place mail to the courts
“unsecurly by depositing them in a mail bag opened . . . to be
inspected.”
(DE #1 at 3.)
He also alleged, as a separate claim,
that two correctional officers withheld legal materials from him,
causing him “to appear in [the] LaPorte Circuit Court under
prepared . . .” (DE #1 at 4.)
Pursuant to George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605 (7th Cir. 2007), the
Court struck the complaint and gave the Plaintiff time within which
to file an amended complaint containing only a single claim or
related claims (DE #5).
complaint
raising
The Plaintiff has now filed an amended
only
the
question
of
whether
the
WCF
superintendent and property officers violated his right of access
to the courts by not providing him with legal materials from his
property before a hearing in the LaPorte Circuit Court on or about
February 16, 2011 (DE #9).
DISCUSSION
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), district courts must review
the merits of any “complaint in a civil action in which a prisoner
seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of
a governmental entity,” and dismiss it if the action is frivolous
or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune
from such relief.
FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6) provides for the
dismissal of a complaint, or any portion of a complaint, for
failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Courts
apply the same standard under § 1915A as when addressing a motion
under RULE 12(b)(6). Lagerstrom v. Kingston, 463 F.3d 621, 624 (7th
Cir. 2006).
The pleading standards in the context of a motion to dismiss
for failure to state a claim are that the “plaintiff’s obligation
to provide the grounds of his entitlement to relief requires more
2
than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the
elements of a cause of action will not do.”
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007).
Bell Atlantic v.
A court should assume the
veracity of a complaint’s allegations, and then determine whether
they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.
Ashcroft v.
Iqbal , 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949-50; 173 L. Ed. 2d 868, 884 (2009).
In the context of pro se litigation, the Supreme Court stated
that “[s]pecific facts are not necessary” to meet the requirements
of Rule 8(a).
The Court further noted that a “document filed pro
se is to be liberally construed, and a pro se complaint, however
inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than
formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S.
89, 94 (2007).
Frohwerk brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which
provides a cause of action to redress the violation of federally
secured rights by a person acting under color of state law.
To
state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege violation of
rights secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States,
and must show that a person acting under color of state law
committed the alleged deprivation.
(1988).
West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42
The first inquiry in every § 1983 case is whether the
plaintiff has been deprived of a right secured by the Constitution
or laws of the United States.
Frohwerk alleges that the WCF superintendent and property
officers
Cole
and
Nash
violated
3
rights
protected
by
the
Constitution’s First Amendment by denying him access to legal
materials he believes he needed to prepare for a hearing in the
LaPorte Circuit Court.
He states that he was confined in the
segregation unit between January 31 and April 20, 2011, and that
his legal materials were stored in the WCF property room. (DE #3 at
19.)
Frohwerk states that he filed a state petition for writ of
habeas corpus asserting that he was in custody on an expired
sentence. He alleges that a hearing was set in the LaPorte Circuit
Court on February 16, 2011, and that he needed his “legal files and
documents to prepare for this hearing.” (DE #9 at 3.) He asserts
that because the defendants “withheld my legal work for (16) days
I appeared under prepared and without the filings I intended to
file in open court . . . [and] . . . I couldn’t remember the
authorities at all properly.”
(DE #9 at 4.)
As a result, according to the complaint, “the State prevailed”
at the hearing and his habeas petition was transferred to another
court as a petition for post-conviction relief, resulting in a
delay in addressing the merits of his petition. (DE #9 at 4.)
Frohwerk attaches a copy of an order dated April 20, 2011, ordering
that the “Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be
transferred by the Clerk of the LaPorte Circuit Court to the Clerk
of the St. Joseph County Superior/Circuit Court where it shall be
treated as a Petition for Post-Conviction Relief.”
4
(DE #9 at 9.)
The Plaintiff’s claims implicate the First Amendment, and the
Fourteenth Amendment right to substantive due process.
See Snyder
v. Nolen, 380 F.3d 279, 290 (7th Cir. 2004) (The right of access to
the courts is an aspect of the First Amendment right to petition
the government for redress of grievances).
The fundamental right
of access to the courts requires prison authorities to provide
prisoners with the tools necessary “to attack their sentences,
directly or collaterally, and in order to challenge the conditions
of their confinement.”
Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 355 (1996);
see also Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 828 (1977).
To establish a violation of the right to access to the courts,
the Plaintiff must establish that his custodians failed to provide
the assistance required by Bounds, and show that he suffered actual
injury.
Lewis, 518 U.S. at 351 (holding that Bounds v. Smith did
not eliminate the actual-injury requirement as a constitutional
prerequisite to a prisoner asserting lack of access to the courts).
The actual-injury requirement applies even in cases “involving
substantial systematic deprivation of access to court,” including
the
“total
denial
of
access
to
a
library,”
deprivation of access to all legal materials.”
or
“an
absolute
Lewis, 518 U.S. at
352 n. 4 (emphasis in original).
Standing alone, delay and
inconvenience
level
do
not
rise
to
the
of
a
constitutional
deficiency. Campbell v. Miller, 787 F.2d 217, 229 (7th Cir. 1986).
Frohwerk asserts that the Defendants violated his right to
5
access to the courts by not giving him legal materials from his
stored property prior to a hearing on whether his state habeas
petition should be treated as a petition for post-conviction
relief.
He alleges that because his state petition collaterally
attacking his conviction has been transferred to St. Joseph County,
it is taking longer to resolve his claims on the merits. (DE #9 at
4.)
But being required to litigate his claims in the St. Joseph
Circuit or Superior Court rather than the LaPorte Circuit Court
does not injure or prejudice Frohwerk because his substantive
claims
are
inconvenience
deficiency.
still
do
before
not
rise
the
to
state
the
courts,
level
Campbell, 787 F.2d at 229.
of
and
a
delay
and
constitutional
Frohwerk has not shown
that he suffered actual injury, as required by Lewis, 518 U.S. at
351, and he has not pled facts that would plausibly give rise to an
entitlement to relief.
Ashcroft, 129 S. Ct. at 1949-50.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915A(b)
(1), the court DISMISSES the Plaintiff’s Complaint and DIRECTS the
Clerk to CLOSE this case.
DATED: October 17, 2011
/s/ RUDY LOZANO, Judge
United States District Court
6
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?