Balcar et al v. Kentucky State Reformatory et al
Filing
15
MEMORANDUM AND OPINION by Senior Judge Thomas B. Russell on 12/15/2017; a separate order shall enter.cc: plaintiff pro se, defendants (KJA)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
LOUISVILLE DIVISION
YALE L. BALCAR et al.
PLAINTIFFS
v.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:17CV-P345-TBR
KENTUCKY STATE REFORMATORY et al.
DEFENDANTS
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Two state prisoners at the Kentucky State Reformatory (KSR), Yale L. Balcar and
Clarence Russell, filed a pro se complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter is before
the Court on initial screening of the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. By Memorandum
Opinion and Orders entered October 24 and 25, 2017 (DNs 12 & 13), the Court dismissed
Plaintiff Balcar from the action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) for failure to comply with a
prior Order of this Court and for failure to prosecute. Therefore, the Court will perform its initial
review on Plaintiff Russell’s claims only. For the reasons that follow, the action will be
dismissed.
I. SUMMARY OF CLAIMS
Plaintiff Russell sues KSR and also sues, in their individual and official capacities, KSR
Warden Aaron Smith and KSR Legal Officer Casey Dowden. The complaint alleges generally
that Plaintiff Russell was “Denied Access to Courts.” Much of the complaint specifically
pertains to Plaintiff Balcar, who has been dismissed from this action. The Court will focus on
those parts of the complaint that pertain to both Plaintiffs and only to Plaintiff Russell. The
following allegations appear to apply to both Plaintiffs:
Law Libraries and Legal Assistance is close about 20 days a month her
a Kentucky State Reformatory . . . .
Warden Aaron Smith and Casey Dowden is denied or lack of an
adequate library or legal assistance and ledgal copy for Court is frustrated
or impeded us from bring claims about our criminal conviction or sentence
or about our conditions of confinement. There is a Actual injury her on my
case because you cannot get to the Law library for reach and cannot get
copy to send to the Court . . . .
The only paragraph specifically to mention Plaintiff Russell is as follows:
Warden Smith want Balcar to stop all legal help to all inmates and Clarence
Russell. Clarence Russell has a criminal case and is protected by the Sixth
Amendment right to the effective assistance to legal help and Warden Smith
and Guards wont to interference with the legal help Balcar ability to consult
for legal help, violate Russell rights. The Court has held that restriction to
legal help by a jailhouse lawyer violate the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due
Process Clause. Also Balcar to Russell has the right to privacy as a Jail
house lawyer under the Fourteenth Amendment right of privacy. Warden
Smith and Guards cannot searches and read other prisoners legal paper as
Clarence Russell that is in Balcar cell. Which they have done. They can
search contraband only. Fourth Amendment claim for unreasonable cell
searches is when they reads legal paper works.
As relief, Plaintiff Russell seeks compensatory and punitive damages and an injunction to
“Immediately arrange the opening of the Law Library 5 Days a weeks and in the morning and
afternoon.”
II. LEGAL STANDARD
Because Plaintiff is a prisoner seeking relief against governmental entities, officers,
and/or employees, this Court must review the instant action under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. See
McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 604 (6th Cir. 1997), overruled on other grounds by
Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (2007). Under § 1915A, the trial court must review the complaint
and dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the court determines that it is
frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary
relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See § 1915A(b)(1), (2).
2
A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). The trial court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as
frivolous where it is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual
contentions are clearly baseless. Id. at 327.
In order to survive dismissal for failure to state a claim, “a complaint must contain
sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’”
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544,
570 (2007)). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows
the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct
alleged.” Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). “[A] district court must (1) view the complaint
in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and (2) take all well-pleaded factual allegations as
true.” Tackett v. M & G Polymers, USA, LLC, 561 F.3d 478, 488 (6th Cir. 2009) (citing
Gunasekera v. Irwin, 551 F.3d 461, 466 (6th Cir. 2009) (citations omitted)). “A pleading that
offers ‘labels and conclusions’ or ‘a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will
not do.’ Nor does a complaint suffice if it tenders ‘naked assertion[s]’ devoid of ‘further factual
enhancement.’” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 557).
Although courts are to hold pro se pleadings “to less stringent standards than formal
pleadings drafted by lawyers,” Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972), this duty to be less
stringent “does not require us to conjure up unpled allegations,” McDonald v. Hall, 610 F.2d 16,
19 (1st Cir. 1979), or to create a claim for a plaintiff. Clark v. Nat’l Travelers Life Ins. Co., 518
F.2d 1167, 1169 (6th Cir. 1975). To command otherwise would require courts “to explore
exhaustively all potential claims of a pro se plaintiff, [and] would also transform the district
3
court from its legitimate advisory role to the improper role of an advocate seeking out the
strongest arguments and most successful strategies for a party.” Beaudett v. City of Hampton,
775 F.2d 1274, 1278 (4th Cir. 1985).
III. ANALYSIS
Plaintiff Russell generally claims a denial of access to courts. To state a claim for a
denial of access to the courts, a prisoner must demonstrate actual prejudice to pending litigation
that challenges his conviction or conditions of confinement. Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 355
(1996); Thaddeus-X v. Blatter, 175 F.3d at 391 (“Thus, a prisoner’s right to access the courts
extends to direct appeals, habeas corpus applications, and civil rights claims only.”). That is,
there must be an actual injury, and no actual injury occurs without a showing that such a claim
“has been lost or rejected, or that the presentation of such a claim is currently being prevented.”
Id. at 356; see also Pilgrim v. Littlefield, 92 F.3d 413, 416 (6th Cir. 1996) (stating that an inmate
must show, “for example, that the inadequacy of the prison law library or the available legal
assistance caused such actual injury as the late filing of a court document or the dismissal of an
otherwise meritorious claim”). In addition, “only prisoners with non-frivolous underlying claims
can have standing to litigate an access-to-courts action.” Hadix v. Johnson, 182 F.3d 400, 405
(6th Cir. 1999) (quoting Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. at 353). “[T]he underlying cause of action . . .
is an element that must be described in the complaint, just as much as allegations must describe
the official acts frustrating the litigation.” Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S. 403, 415 (2002).
“Like any other element of an access claim, the underlying cause of action and its lost remedy
must be addressed by allegations in the complaint sufficient to give fair notice to a defendant.”
Id. at 416.
4
The complaint indicates that Plaintiff Russell “has a criminal case” but fails to specify
what claims are being pursued, the stage of the criminal matter (direct appeal or post-conviction),
and most importantly, how any claim has been or is being hindered. The complaint fails to
allege any actual injury to prior, pending, or future litigation due to “Law Libraries and Legal
Assistance [being] close about 20 days a month”; due Defendant Smith’s and “Guards[‘]”
alleged “intereference with the legal help Balcar” is providing Plaintiff Russell; or due to any
other action or inaction by Defendants. Therefore, Plaintiff Russell fails to state a denial-ofaccess-to-courts claim.1
The other claims that specifically mention Plaintiff Russell are broad legal conclusions
lacking in any factual specificity to place Defendants on notice as to the claims against them.
For instance, Plaintiff Russell alleges, “The court has held that restriction to legal help by a
jailhouse lawyer violation the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause,” but he wholly fails
to provide any facts alleging a protected property or liberty interest of which he has been
deprived that would require due process protection and, therefore, fails to state a Fourteenth
Amendment claim. In addition, Plaintiff Russell mentions that “Warden Smith and Guards”
searched Plaintiff Balcar’s cell and read Plaintiff Russell’s and “other prisoners legal paper.”
Plaintiff Russell, however, fails to state a constitutional claim because he fails to allege specific
facts surrounding this alleged incident; fails to identify what document(s) was read; and,
Plaintiffs also filed a motion for preliminary injunctive relief (DN 8) seeking “Right of access to the
Courts and free legal copy to the Court.” While this motion will be denied as moot in light of the
dismissal of the action, the Court nevertheless mentions it here. Plaintiffs claim that “Warden Aaron
Smith has Order Casey Dowden . . . to stop making copy of Plaintiffs and other inmates that has No
Money on their inmates account at KSR” and that “Without copy of legal paper will cause ‘Actual injury;
to ours cases or lawsuit. Stoping legal copy because of no money is a KSR policy stopped plaintiff from
being able to assert a []nonfrivolous claim.’” Despite a broad and conclusory allegation that an “actual
injury” will occur, Plaintiff Russell fails to show how KSR’s failure to make copies denies him the ability
to file original documents in court, and he fails to identify any past, pending, or future claim that has been
or will be frustrated/denied due to lack of copies. For these reasons, Plaintiff Russell fails to state a claim
that he has been denied access to courts in is preliminary-injunction motion.
1
5
therefore, makes only a legal conclusion that “legal paper” was read. Finally, Plaintiff Russell
states that he “has a criminal case and is protected by the Sixth Amendment right to effective
assistance to legal help,” but he fails to provide facts even suggesting that he is being denied the
right to counsel as protected under that amendment.
For all the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff Russell fails to state a claim upon which relief may
be granted, and the action will be dismissed by separate Order.
Date:
December 15, 2017
cc:
Plaintiff, pro se
Defendants
4413.005
6
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?