Waterman v. Board of Commissioners of Columbus, Kansas et al

Filing 27

ORDER ENTERED: Plaintiff's motion to amend 22 is denied. Signed by U.S. District Senior Judge Sam A. Crow on 07/27/18. Mailed to pro se party Brian Michael Waterman by regular mail. (smnd)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

BRIAN MICHAEL WATERMAN,
Plaintiff,
vs.

Case No. 18-3135-SAC

BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, et al.,
Defendants.

O R D E R
This case is before the court upon plaintiff’s motion for
leave to amend the complaint.

Doc. No. 22.

Because this case is

in its early stages and service upon defendants has not yet been
ordered, the court treats the motion as presenting additional
claims

for

the

court

to

screen

pursuant

responsibilities under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.

to

the

court’s

Therefore, the court

applies the standards for screening pro se pleadings that the court
discussed in a prior screening order.

Doc. No. 13.

Plaintiff’s motion to amend seeks to add a claim alleging
that defendants are improperly charging sales tax on stamped
envelopes.

The facts described in plaintiff’s motion, however,

fail to state a plausible constitutional claim or other violation
of federal law.

The Tenth Circuit has held that an inmate has “no

constitutionally protected interest in buying stamps as cheaply as
possible as ‘there is simply no legal basis for a demand that

1

inmates be offered items for purchase at or near cost.’” McCall v.
Keefe Supply Co., 71 Fed.Appx. 779, 780 (10th Cir. 2003)(quoting
French v. Butterworth, 614 F.2d 23, 25 (1st Cir. 1980)).

See also,

Amos v. Stolzer, 2014 WL 6473596 *9 (E.D.Mo. 11/18/2014)(quoting
Poole v. Stubblefield, 2005 WL 2290450 *2 (E.D.Mo. 9/20/2005)(a
prisoner has “’no constitutional interest in commissary prices and
no legal basis for demanding that commissary items be offered taxfree’”);

Pruett

v.

Burnett,

2010

WL

1959908

*1

(5/14/2010)(dismissing claim that County is violating the law by
making a profit on stamps and charging sales tax on them); Richard
v. Cupp, 2009 WL 840218 *5 (W.D.La. 3/25/2009)(dismissing claim
that inmate was charged an additional ten cents for a book of
stamps);

Hardin

v.

Johnson,

2008

WL

906489

*4

(N.D.Miss.

4/1/2008)(same); Collins v. Virginia, 2006 WL 1587467 *1 (W.D.Va.
6/6/2006)(no

constitutional

right

to

purchase

stamps

at

the

cheapest price possible).
Plaintiff also asserts that his right of access to the courts
has been denied.

But, he fails to allege facts plausibly showing

how he has been injured or denied the opportunity to advance a
valid legal claim.
In summary, for the above-stated reasons, the court finds
that plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend fails to allege facts
plausibly

describing

a

constitutional

violation.

Therefore,

plaintiff’s motions to amend – Doc. No. 22 – shall be denied.
2

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 27th day of July, 2018, at Topeka, Kansas.

s/Sam A. Crow_________________________
Sam A. Crow, U.S. District Senior Judge

3