Beauclair (ID 74638) v. Dowd et al
Filing
5
ORDER ENTERED: Plaintiff's motion 3 for recusal was rendered moot by reassingment of this matter. Within thirty (30) days, plaintiff shall submit an initial partial filing fee of $6.00. Any objection to this order must be filed on or b efore the date payment is due. The failure to file a timely response may result in the dismissal of this action without prejudice and without additional prior notice to the plaintiff. Plaintiff is granted thirty (30) days to show cause why the complaint should not be summarily dismissed. Signed by Senior District Judge Richard D. Rogers on 11/5/2013. (Mailed to pro se party Danny E. Beauclair by regular mail.) (smnd)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
DANNY E. BEAUCLAIR,
Plaintiff,
v.
CASE NO. 13-3169-RDR
MATTHEW J. DOWD, et al.,
Defendants.
O R D E R
Before this court is a complaint seeking relief under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983, submitted pro se by a prisoner incarcerated in a Kansas
correctional facility.1
Also before the court is plaintiff’s motion
for leave to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, 28 U.S.C. § 1915
Plaintiff must pay the full $350.00 filing fee in this civil
action.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1)(prisoner bringing a civil action
or appeal in forma pauperis is required to pay the full filing fee).
If granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis, plaintiff is entitled
to pay this filing fee over time, as provided by payment of an initial
partial filing fee to be assessed by the court under 28 U.S.C. §
1915(b)(1) and by periodic payments from plaintiff's inmate trust fund
account as authorized in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2).
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1), the court is required to
assess an initial partial filing fee of twenty percent of the greater
1
The named defendants in plaintiff’s complaint include United States District
Court Judge Sam A. Crow, the district court judge first assigned to this matter.
Upon reassignment of the complaint to the undersigned judge, plaintiff’s motion for
the recusal of Judge Crow was rendered moot.
of the average monthly deposits or average monthly balance in the
prisoner's account for the six months immediately preceding the date
of filing of a civil action.
Having examined the records provided,
the court assesses an initial partial filing fee of $6.50, twenty
percent of the average monthly deposit to plaintiff’s inmate account,
rounded to the lower half dollar.
Plaintiff is advised that the
failure to pay this initial partial filing fee may result in the motion
for leave to proceed in forma pauperis being denied, and the complaint
being dismissed without prejudice based upon plaintiff’s failure to
comply with any statutory provision for satisfying the filing fee
required to proceed in district court.
Screening of the Complaint, 28 U.S.C. § 1915A
Because plaintiff is a prisoner, the court is required to screen
the complaint and to dismiss it or any portion thereof that is
frivolous, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or
seeks monetary relief from a defendant immune from such relief.
U.S.C. ' 1915A(a) and (b).
28
Although a complaint filed pro se by a party
proceeding in forma pauperis must be given a liberal construction,
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007), even under this standard a
pro se litigant=s Aconclusory allegations without supporting factual
averments are insufficient to state a claim upon which relief can be
based.@
Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir.1991).
Plaintiff bears the burden of alleging Aenough facts to state a claim
to relief that is plausible on its face.@
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007).
Bell Atlantic Corp. v.
See Robbins v. Oklahoma, 519 F.3d
1242, 1247 (10th Cir.2008)(stating and applying Twombly standard for
dismissing a complaint as stating no claim for relief).
ATo state a claim under ' 1983, a plaintiff must allege the
violation of a right secured by the Constitution and laws of the United
States and must show that the alleged deprivation was committed by
a person acting under color of state law.@
42, 48 (1988).
West v. Atkins, 487 U.S.
Having reviewed plaintiff’s allegations, the court
finds the complaint is subject to being summarily dismissed for the
following reasons.
It appears that plaintiff is attempting to proceed under § 1983
on claims of being denied due process in his 1981 criminal proceeding,
his direct and collateral state court appeals, and his related federal
habeas corpus action.
The defendants named in the complaint include
five private attorneys, one state district court judge, seven state
appellate judges, and one federal district court judge.
defendants are named in their official capacity.
All
Notwithstanding the
habeas corpus nature of plaintiff’s allegations of error, plaintiff
expressly maintains he is not challenging the legality of his present
confinement.
Instead, plaintiff claims he is entitled to prospective
relief under § 1983 to remedy defendants’ alleged violation of
plaintiff’s constitutional rights of access to the courts and due
process in plaintiff’s previous judicial proceedings regarding his
criminal conviction.
The court disagrees.
The private attorneys named as defendants are not persons “acting
under color of state law” for purposes of stating any claim for relief
under § 1983.
See Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 325 (1981)("[A]
public defender does not act under color of state law when performing
a lawyer’s traditional functions as counsel to a defendant in a
criminal
proceeding.").
Likewise,
no
state
action
supports
plaintiff’s claim for relief under § 1983 against the federal district
court judge who denied plaintiff relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
And to the extent plaintiff asks this court to invalidate any
state procedures previously used to deny plaintiff’s claims of
ineffective assistance of counsel, there is nothing in the complaint
to suggest any identifiable live case or controversy involving any
of the named defendants.
Accordingly, the allegations in the
complaint fail to make any showing that plaintiff has standing to seek
such sweeping prospective relief under § 1983.
See Clark v. State
Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 590 F.3d 1134 (10th Cir.2009)(federal
court’s jurisdiction is limited to live controversies)(citation
omitted).
Notice and Show Cause Order to Plaintiff
The court thus directs plaintiff to show cause why the complaint
should not be summarily dismissed because plaintiff’s claims against
the named defendants are legally frivolous if not malicious, and
clearly fail to state any cognizable claim for relief under § 1983.
28 U.S.C. § 19115A(b); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).2
The failure to file
a timely response may result in the complaint being dismissed for the
reasons stated herein, and without further prior notice to plaintiff.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for recusal (Doc.
3) was rendered moot by reassignment of this matter to the undersigned
judge.
2
Plaintiff is advised that dismissal of the complaint under 28 U.S.C. §§
1915A(b) or 1915(e)(2)(B) will count as a Astrike@ under 28 U.S.C. 1915(g), a
A3-strike@ provision which prevents a prisoner from proceeding in forma pauperis
in bringing a civil action or appeal if Aon 3 or more prior occasions, while
incarcerated or detained in any facility, [the prisoner] brought an action or appeal
in a court of the United States that was dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous,
malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, unless the
prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical injury.@
Court records in the District of Kansas disclose that plaintiff has already
acquired at least two prior “strikes.” See Beauclair v. Graves, D.Kan. Case No.
03-3237-SAC (complaint dismissed as stating no claim for relief), aff’d, (10th Cir.
May 22, 2007); Beauclair v. Werholtz, D.Kan. Case No. 07-3022-SAC (complaint
dismissed as stating no claim for relief).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within thirty (30) days, plaintiff
shall submit an initial partial filing fee of $6.50.
Any objection
to this order must be filed on or before the date payment is due.
The
failure to file a timely response may result in the dismissal of this
action without prejudice and without additional prior notice to the
plaintiff.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff is granted thirty (30) days
to show cause why the complaint should not be summarily dismissed for
the reasons stated by the court.
DATED:
This 5th day of November 2013, at Topeka, Kansas.
s/ Richard D. Rogers
RICHARD D. ROGERS
United States 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?