Randall v. South Dakota, State of et al

Filing 6

ORDER Adopting 4 Report and Recommendation; Plaintiff's Objections 5 are Overruled; denying 2 Application on Proceed In Forma Pauperis in District Court; all claims in the Complaint 1 are DISMISSED (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Ann D. Montgomery on 03/28/2012. (TLU) cc: Carol A. Randall. Modified on 3/28/2012 (lmb).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Carol A. Randall,
Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER
Civil No. 12-136 ADM/TNL

State of South Dakota, Federal Government,
Ron Mills, Oliver Red Cloud, Pat Janis,
Doris Goings, Veronica Janis Garnier, Basil
Loud Hawk,
Defendants.
______________________________________________________________________________
Carol A. Randall, pro se.
______________________________________________________________________________

This matter is before the undersigned United States District Judge for consideration of
Plaintiff Carol A. Randall’s Objections [Docket No. 5] to Magistrate Judge Tony N. Leung’s
January 30, 2012 Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) [Docket No. 4]. Judge Leung’s R&R
recommends denying Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis in District Court
[Docket No. 2] (the “IFP Application”) and summarily dismissing all her claims pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). Based on a de novo review of the record, the R&R is adopted,
Randall’s Objections are overruled, the IFP Application is denied, and her claims are dismissed.
An action of a party proceeding in forma pauperis must be dismissed if the action is
frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary
relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Randall
alleges that Defendants Ron Mills, Oliver Red Cloud, Pat Janis, Doris Goings, Veronica Janis
Garnier, and Basil Loud Hawk (collectively, the “Individual Defendants”) are conducting
surveillance of her life with equipment provided by Defendants the State of South Dakota

(“South Dakota”) and “Federal Government” (“United States”). She avers either South Dakota
or the United States is providing surveillance equipment because the Individual Defendants
could not afford to purchase such equipment without government assistance. Such allegations
are insufficient to raise a plausible inference of state action. Any civil rights claims asserted by
Randall are without basis in fact. Accordingly, any such claims are dismissed.
Randall’s civil rights allegations seek to protect her privacy and presuppose her privacy
can only be vindicated by invoking the U.S. Constitution. As a pro se party, however, Randall is
entitled to have her pleadings construed liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520
(1972). Both South Dakota and Minnesota recognize a cause of action for invasion of privacy
premised on intrusion upon seclusion. Lake v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 582 N.W.2d 231, 233–34
(Minn. 1998); Montgomery Ward v. Shope, 286 N.W.2d 806, 808 (S.D. 1979). Construing
Randall’s allegations liberally, they also suggest she may be attempting to assert causes of
actions for slander, assault, intentional infliction of emotional distress, or other torts. No matter
how they are termed, however, Randall’s allegations are frivolous.
An application to proceed in forma pauperis is properly denied when allegations are
frivolous on their face because they are vague and conclusory. Green v. White, 616 F.3d 1054,
1055 (8th Cir. 1980). Randall’s allegations are entirely vague and conclusory. She repeatedly
states that she is being watched. Yet, she claims to know this because she can hear people
talking about her while others cannot hear the same. This discrepancy is never explained.
Furthermore, reading the allegations, it is wholly unclear whether the Individual Defendants
actually made the statements she attributes to them or whether she merely hears the statements
wholly within her mind. Allegations that the Individual Defendants have threatened to make her

2

or her family members “pay” or make “bad things” happen are too vague to evaluate whether
such threats are actionable. Likewise, the allegations that certain Individual Defendants have
followed her, while disturbing, lacks any detail from which to evaluate whether a cause of action
exists. Rather, Randall’s allegations recite at length what she hears, without explanation why
others do not hear the same, and with a particular focus on the salacious. On their face, her
allegations are fanciful, fantastic, or delusional. Therefore, the allegations are dismissed and the
IFP Application is denied. See Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32–33 (1992).
Based upon the foregoing, and all the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Randall’s Objections [Docket No. 5] are OVERRULED;
2. Judge Leung’s R&R [Docket No. 4] is ADOPTED;
3. The IFP Application [Docket No. 2] is DENIED; and
4. All claims in the Complaint [Docket No. 1] are DISMISSED.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
BY THE COURT:

s/Ann D. Montgomery
ANN D. MONTGOMERY
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: March 28, 2012.

3