Cole v. Baldwin et al
Filing
16
ORDER denying 14 Motion to Appoint Counsel and denying 15 Motion to Add Parties. See text of Order for details. Signed by Senior Judge Donald E OBrien on 2/28/14. (copy w/nef mailed to pro se plaintiff) (djs)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA
CENTRAL DIVISION
JAMIE LEE COLE,
Plaintiff,
No. 14-CV-3007-DEO
v.
ORDER
JOHN BALDWIN, STEVE
DRAHAZOL, LORI COOK, KATIE
DEAL, DAVE BAUMGARTNER,
NETTY RINSHAW, ANNE BABBE,
MONICA ACKLEY, JIM MCKINNY,
BRIAN SPANNAGLE, CONTRACT
ATTORNEY IN FORT DODGE, DR.
KELLER, SGT. PALMER, JASON
HAWKINS, MAJOR WAGERS,
CAPTAIN MAYO, CONTRACT
ATTORNEY IN ANAMOSA,
CONTRACT ATTORNEY IN
OAKDALE,
Defendants.
____________________
I.
INTRODUCTION
This matter is before the Court on Jamie Lee Cole’s
(hereinafter Mr. Cole) pro se Motion to Appoint Counsel,
Docket No. 14, and pro se Motion to Add Parties, Docket No.
15.
On January 31, 2014, Mr. Cole filed a pro se 42 U.S.C. §
1983
Complaint,
Docket
No.
1,
against
the
above
named
Defendants (both known and unknown), along with a Motion to
Proceed In Forma Pauperis, Docket No. 2.
Mr. Cole alleged
numerous violations against the above named Defendants, which
include an Iowa State Court Judge and a number of his previous
and current attorneys.
entered
an
Complaint.
Initial
On February 21, 2014, this Court
Review
Docket No. 9.
Order
dismissing
Mr.
Cole’s
In that Order, the Court found that
Mr. Cole had failed to state any claim upon which relief could
be granted.
Id., p. 19.
On February 24, 2014, Mr. Cole filed a pro se Motion to
Clarify.
Docket No. 11.
In that Motion he stated:
I received back from the [Clerk of Court’s
Office] a page about [Local Rule 10] and
there having to be a 1 inch [margin] at the
top of all documents... I did that here,
but when I tried to have the [librarian] do
my copies of it she didn’t want to do it
because there wasn’t a 1 inch margin all
the way around...1
Docket No. 11.
On February 25, 2014, the Court entered an Order, Docket
No. 12, stating:
1
Local Rule 10 sets out the standard formatting for all
documents filed in the Northern District of Iowa. The Clerk
of Court’s office routinely sends out copies of that rule to
pro se litigants.
2
the Court notes that it did not consider
Local Rule 10 when it ruled on Mr. Cole’s
pro se Complaint. The fact that Mr. Cole’s
Complaint, Docket No. 1, did not conform to
the local formatting rules was not held
against Mr. Cole. The Court considered Mr.
Cole’s
Complaint
on
its
merits
and
determined that Mr. Cole had failed to
state a claim upon which relief could be
granted. Accordingly, Mr. Cole’s present
Motion to Clarify is not necessary. The
Court considered Mr. Cole’s Complaint on
its merits. For that reason, Mr. Cole’s
pro se Motion to Clarify, Docket No. 11, is
denied as moot.
Docket No. 12, p. 2-3.
II.
PRESENT MOTIONS
On February 27, 2014, Mr. Cole filed the present Motions
to Appoint Counsel and to Add Parties.
Docket Nos. 14 and 15.
In the former of those two documents, Mr. Cole requests the
Court appoint an attorney to his case. As the Court discussed
in its prior Order(s), Mr. Cole has failed to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted. Accordingly, his request to
have an attorney appointed is moot and must be denied.
In the Motion to Add Parties, Mr. Cole requests Chad
Brownfield
According
and
to
Christina
Docket
No.
Carter
15,
be
Mr.
added
as
Brownfield
Defendants.
is
a
staff
psychologist at the Iowa Medical and Classification center,
3
and Ms. Carter is his associate.
Mr. Cole alleges that Mr.
Brownfield and Ms. Carter refused to help him contact his
hometown sheriff and that they continue to keep him on mental
health status.
The Court stated in its original Initial Review Order:
Mr. Cole alleges that Netty Rinshaw, Katie
Deal, and Lori Cook are treatment providers
at the Fort Dodge Correctional Facility.
Mr. Cole alleges that they threatened to
move
him
to
different
treatment
classifications.2
To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983,
Mr. Cole must allege that a person, acting
under the color of state authority,
infringed his rights or committed some
other constitutional violation against him.
Corrections
officers
and
treatment
providers are within their rights to change
his treatment classification. (In fact, it
is part of their job).
To amount to a
constitutional violation, Mr. Cole would
have to allege that their decision or
threat to change his classification was
motivated
by
some
constitutionally
deficient reason, i.e., they were being
deliberately indifferent to a serious
medical need, they were making their
decision on basis race or gender, or they
were doing it in retaliation for a
protected activity. Mr. Cole has failed to
make any such allegation. Accordingly, he
2
He also alleges they refused to put him in contact with
the U.S. Marshal’s Service. However, he makes no mention of
how that would constitute a constitutional violation.
4
has failed to state a claim for which
relief can be granted under 42 U.S.C. §
1983 and his Complaint against Netty
Rinshaw, Katie Deal and Lori Cook must be
dismissed.
Docket No. 9, p. 15.
In regards to Defendant Dr. Anne Babbe the Court stated:
Mr. Cole's next claim is against Anne
Babbe, a psychologist at the Anamosa
Correctional Facility.
Mr. Cole alleges
that Dr. Babbe assigned Mr. Cole to a
"mental health status" and ignored him.
Again, employees at the department of
corrections have the responsibility to make
recommendations
regarding
Mr.
Cole's
treatment. Mr. Cole has failed to allege
how Dr. Babbe's actions constitute a
constitutional violation that would give
rise to a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Accordingly, Mr. Cole's claims against Dr.
Babbe must be dismissed.
Id., p. 16.
That same analysis applies to Mr. Cole’s claims against
Mr. Brownfield and Ms. Carter.
The Defendants are under a
duty to treat Mr. Cole and Mr. Cole has failed to articulate
any claim against them that would give rise to an action under
42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Accordingly, Mr. Cole’s Motion to Add
Parties must be dismissed.
5
To the extent Mr. Cole is upset that the Defendants will
not contact the sheriff in his hometown, Mr. Cole has failed
to
articulate
violation.
how
that
gives
rise
to
a
constitutional
Additionally, Mr. Cole may write the sheriff with
any concerns that he has.
Also, the Court notes that the
Defendants have no power to compel an interaction between Mr.
Cole and his family.
Finally, Mr. Cole also alleges that he has information
related
to
the
Evansville, Iowa.
criminal
kidnaping
and
murder
of
two
girls
from
This Court has no power to direct ongoing
investigations.
If
Mr.
Cole
has
important
information regarding that case, he can write Gerard Meyers,
assistant director of field operations for the Iowa Division
of Criminal Investigation, who is in charge of the Evansville
investigation.3
For
the
reasons
set
out
above,
Mr.
Cole’s
present
Motions, Docket Nos. 14 and 15, must be denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 28th day of February, 2014.
__________________________________
Donald E. O’Brien, Senior Judge
United States District Court
Northern District of Iowa
3
The address for the Iowa Division of Criminal
Investigations is 215 East 7th Street, Des Moines, Iowa 50319.
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?