Harvey v. Williams et al
ORDER ENTERED: This action is dismissed and all relief is denied. Plaintiff's motion 5 for leave to proceed without prepayment of fees is provisionally granted for the sole purpose of dismissing this action. Plaintiff's motion 4 to appoint counsel is denied as moot. Signed by Senior District Judge Sam A. Crow on 6/19/2012. (Mailed to pro se party Levi Lloyd Harvey by regular mail.) (smnd)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
LEVI LLOYD HARVEY,
NORMAN D. WILLIAMS,
Chief of Police, Wichita
O R D E R
On September 13, 2011, the court entered an order, upon
screening the complaint filed herein, and found the following
deficiencies: failure to either pay the filing fee or submit a
complete Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees and that
limitations and utterly fail to state a federal constitutional
Plaintiff was given time to satisfy the filing fee
prerequisites, pay an initial partial filing fee of $8.50, and show
cause why this action should not be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. ' 1915A
and 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(e)(2)(B).
Plaintiff has since filed a Motion for Appointment of Counsel
(Doc. 4), an Application to Proceed without Prepayment of Fees on
forms (Doc. 5), and a document entitled “Complaint for Money Damages”
(Doc. 6), which the clerk docketed as his Response to the court’s
Having considered these filings, the court finds
that plaintiff has failed to show cause why this action should not
be dismissed for the reasons stated in the court’s Order of September
Accordingly, this action is dismissed.
Plaintiff’s “Complaint for Money Damages,” if treated as an
Amended Complaint, is not upon forms as required by local rule.
Amended Complaint completely supersedes the original complaint, and
since the new complaint contains no counts or facts in support, it
also utterly fails to state a federal constitutional claim.
document plaintiff does manage to list all defendants after the
title, though still not in the caption as required by Rule 10 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Many of the defendants are merely
described as “responsible” to serve and protect citizens of Wichita
This “complaint” plainly fails to address one of the main
deficiencies set forth in the court’s screening order, that plaintiff
does not allege facts sufficient to state a federal constitutional
If this document were treated as plaintiff’s response to show
cause why this action should not be dismissed, which he was ordered
to file, it likewise utterly fails to address his failure to state
facts sufficient to present a plausible claim that his federal
constitutional rights were violated by any defendant.
Plaintiff’s initial complaint concerned his being tazed
during his 2008 arrest and an officer’s removal of the tazer prods,
which caused him to bleed, as well as the denial of adequate medical
The court found not only that these claims appeared to
be time-barred, but that his allegations regarding the removal of
unqualified persons were not based upon anything other than his lay
opinion, and thus failed to establish a constitutional claim.
respect to defendants that were named and not involved in plaintiff’s
arrest or medical treatment, the court found that plaintiff stated
no federal constitutional claim based upon his challenges to the
police department’s administrative investigation and proceedings.
Plaintiff does not allege additional facts to show that his being
tazed and having the prods removed by the arresting officer, hia being
provided medical attention by an LPN for the bleeding, or the
subsequent administrative proceedings violated his constitutional
Plaintiff does make some effort to argue that his claims are
However, the court is not convinced by the
refused to be questioned, which delayed administrative proceedings;
and that he lacked legal knowledge do not amount to circumstances
beyond his control or that entitle him to tolling of the statute of
Plaintiff inserts inside his Complaint/Response a letter to
the undersigned judge that he has also attached to documents in other
This letter has no relevance to the claims raised in this
The court concludes for the foregoing reasons and for the
reasons stated in its screening order that this action must be
dismissed as time-barred, for failure to state a claim, and as
The court further finds that this dismissal qualifies
as a strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
IT IS THEREFORE BY THE COURT ORDERED that this action is
dismissed and all relief is denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to
Proceed without Prepayment of Fees (Doc. 5) is provisionally granted
for the sole purpose of dismissing this action, and that his Motion
to Appoint Counsel (Doc. 4) is denied as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 19th day of June, 2012, at Topeka, Kansas.
s/Sam A. Crow
U. S. Senior District 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?