Yancey v. Crow et al
Filing
3
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ENTERED: This matter is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Plaintiff's motion 2 for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. Signed by Senior District Judge Richard D. Rogers on 7/6/2011. (Mailed to pro se party John B. Yancey by regular mail.) (smnd)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
JOHN B. YANCEY,
Plaintiff,
CIVIL ACTION
No. 10-3248-RDR
vs.
JUDGE SAM A. CROW, et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter comes before the court on a civil action
captioned as “Conspiracy to Manipulate the Outcome of Cases
Involving Cases against the Correctional Corporation of America
Knowingly
and
Willfully
with
Malice
Intent
to
Violate
Constitution of the Republic of America” (Doc. 1).
the
Plaintiff
proceeds pro se and seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
Background
Plaintiff was incarcerated in the Leavenworth
Detention
Center operated by the Corrections Corporation of America (CCA)
when he filed Case No. 07-3175-SAC, Yancey v. Scrivner, et al.
Court records show the Honorable Sam A. Crow of this court
presided in that matter.
Defendant CCA was represented by
Joshua D. Mast, of the law firm Crow, Clothier, and Associates,
and defendant Scrivner later was represented by John A. Oliveros
of the same firm.
Court records show that Case No. 07-3175 was dismissed on
January 13, 2009, upon defendants’ motion, due to plaintiff’s
failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
Plaintiff’s appeal
was dismissed on March 31, 2009, due to plaintiff’s failure to
timely file the notice of appeal.
Plaintiff, who has been released from confinement, brings
the present action to allege that the defendants, namely, Judge
Crow, the law firm representing the facility, the chaplain, the
warden, CCA, and CCA board members conspired in that matter.
He
seeks damages, and he states “the higher court should reevaluate
the cases decided by Judge Sam A. Crow that involves the
Correctional Corporation of America, Inc.”
(Doc. 1, p. 2.)
Discussion
The court must dismiss a matter in which in forma pauperis
status has been granted if at any time the court determines the
action is “frivolous or malicious,” seeks relief “from a person
immune from such relief,” or “fails to state a claim for
relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
Although plaintiff is no
longer a prisoner as defined in § 1915(h), § 1915(e)(2) applies
to all litigants, prisoners and non-prisoners alike.
See, e.g.,
Michau
725
v.
Charleston
County,
2
S.C.,
434
F.3d
(4th
Cir.)(§1915(e) “governs IFP filings in addition to complaints
filed by prisoners”), cert. denied, 548 U.S. 910 (2006).
also
Merryfield
v.
Jordan,
584
F.3d
923,
926
(10th
See
Cir.
2009)(affirming dismissal of nonprisoner's complaint as frivolous and as stating no claim for relief, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and (ii)).
This matter presents a claim of conspiracy.
“requires
plaintiff
demonstrate
direct
or
Such a claim
circumstantial
evidence of a meeting of the minds or agreement among the
defendants.”
Merritt v. Hawk, 153 F.Supp.2d 1216, 1225 (D.Colo.
2001)(citation omitted).
Mere “conclusory allegations that
defendants acted ‘in concert,’ or ‘conspired’ without specific
factual allegations to support such assertions are insufficient.”
Merritt, 153 F.Supp.2d at 1225 (quoting Aniniba v. City
of Aurora, 994 F.Supp. 1293, 1298 (D.Colo. 1998)).
Here, plaintiff fails to identify any sequence of events
that reasonably suggests a conspiracy by the defendants, and he
offers only conclusory allegations based upon the fact that the
judge and an attorney who is a member of a law firm that
represented the CCA have the same surname.
allegations
are
not
adequate
to
support
Plaintiff’s bare
a
claim
that
the
resolution of the motion to dismiss was the result of bias or
conspiracy, and the court concludes this matter may be dismissed
3
for failure to state a claim for relief.
IT IS, THEREFORE, BY THE COURT ORDERED this matter is
dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED plaintiff’s motion for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2) is granted.
A copy of this order shall be transmitted to the plaintiff.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated at Topeka, Kansas, this 6th day of July, 2011.
S/ Richard D. Rogers
RICHARD D. ROGERS
United States Senior District Judge
4
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?