Maier v. Kansas, State of et al

Filing 3

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ENTERED: Plaintiff's motion to appear in forma pauperis 2 is provisionally granted. Plaintiff's Complaint is dismissed. Signed by U.S. Senior District Judge Sam A. Crow on 05/31/17. Mailed to pro se party Christopher Coty Maier by regular mail. (smnd)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
CHRISTOPHER COTY MAIER,
Plaintiff,
v.

CASE NO. 17-3092-SAC-DJW

UNITED STATE OF AMERICA,
et al.,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Plaintiff Christopher Coty Maier brings this pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983.

Plaintiff is incarcerated at the Douglas County Jail in Lawrence, Kansas.

Plaintiff filed his Complaint (Doc. 1) on May 23, 2017. Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to
appear in forma pauperis (Doc. 2). The Court will provisionally grant the motion to appear in
forma pauperis for purposes of screening Plaintiff’s Complaint.
I. Nature of the Matter before the Court
Plaintiff’s Complaint names the Plaintiffs as: “I AM”; “We the People”; Zion and
Heaven. Plaintiff’s Complaint names as defendants: State of Kansas; Douglas County District
Court; Douglas County Correctional Facility; Douglas County Sheriff’s Internal Affairs; Douglas
County; Kansas Attorney General; Criminal Litigation; and Kansas Secretary of State.
II. Statutory Screening of Prisoner Complaints
The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a
governmental entity or an officer or an employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if a plaintiff has raised
claims that are legally frivolous or malicious, that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be
1

granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28
U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1)–(2).
“To 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.” West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988)
(citations omitted); Northington v. Jackson, 973 F.2d 1518, 1523 (10th Cir. 1992). A court
liberally construes a pro se complaint and applies “less stringent standards than formal pleadings
drafted by lawyers.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). In addition, the court accepts
all well-pleaded allegations in the complaint as true. Anderson v. Blake, 469 F.3d 910, 913 (10th
Cir. 2006). On the other hand, “when the allegations in a complaint, however true, could not
raise a claim of entitlement to relief,” dismissal is appropriate. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,
550 U.S. 544, 558 (2007).
A pro se litigant’s “conclusory 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). “[A] plaintiff’s obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of his ‘entitlement to
relief’ requires “more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a
cause of action.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (citations omitted). The complaint’s “factual
allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level” and “to state a
claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. at 555, 570.
The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals has explained “that, to state a claim in federal court,
a complaint must explain what each defendant did to [the pro se plaintiff]; when the defendant
did it; how the defendant’s action harmed [the plaintiff]; and, what specific legal right the
plaintiff believes the defendant violated.” Nasious v. Two Unknown B.I.C.E. Agents, 492 F.3d

2

1158, 1163 (10th Cir. 2007). The court “will not supply additional factual allegations to round
out a plaintiff’s complaint or construct a legal theory on a plaintiff’s behalf.” Whitney v. New
Mexico, 113 F.3d 1170, 1173-74 (10th Cir. 1997) (citation omitted).
The Tenth Circuit has pointed out that the Supreme Court’s decisions in Twombly and
Erickson gave rise to a new standard of review for § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) dismissals. See Kay v.
Bemis, 500 F.3d 1214, 1218 (10th Cir. 2007) (citations omitted); see also Smith v. United States,
561 F.3d 1090, 1098 (10th Cir. 2009). As a result, courts “look to the specific allegations in the
complaint to determine whether they plausibly support a legal claim for relief.” Kay, 500 F.3d at
1218 (citation omitted). Under this new standard, “a plaintiff must ‘nudge his claims across the
line from conceivable to plausible.’” Smith, 561 F.3d at 1098 (citation omitted). “Plausible” in
this context does not mean “likely to be true,” but rather refers “to the scope of the allegations in
a complaint: if they are so general that they encompass a wide swath of conduct, much of it
innocent,” then the plaintiff has not “nudged [his] claims across the line from conceivable to
plausible.” Robbins v. Oklahoma, 519 F.3d 1242, 1247 (10th Cir. 2008) (citing Twombly, 127 S.
Ct. at 1974).
III. Discussion
Plaintiff’s Complaint is frivolous, fails to state a claim, and names improper defendants.
Plaintiff’s Complaint is submitted by Maier, who asserts rights on behalf of the improperly
named Plaintiffs.
claims.

Even liberally construing the Complaint, the Court finds no meritorious

Plaintiff’s Complaint asserts that “The People’s” rights are being denied.

The

sedition/maritime claim in Count I, the treason claim in Count II, and the RICO claim in Count
III are bare arguments that border on malicious. Plaintiff also lists claims in Counts IV through
VIII for perjury, breach of contract, trademark/copyright violation, dereliction of duty, and

3

criminal deprivation of property, without any supporting facts or allegations. (Doc. 1, at 7.)
Furthermore, Plaintiff clearly has not exhausted his administrative remedies. In response to the
section of the Complaint inquiring as to whether Plaintiff sought administrative relief, he only
lists the following names: “James Comey (FBI); KBI Internal Affairs; Criminal Litigation; and
DGCO Internal Affairs.” (Doc. 1, at 6.)
The Court finds that Plaintiff’s Complaint must be dismissed because Plaintiff has raised
claims that are legally frivolous or malicious, that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.
IT IS THEREFORE BY THE COURT ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint is
dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 31st day of May, 2017, in Topeka, Kansas.

s/ Sam A. Crow
SAM A. CROW
U. S. Senior District Judge

4