Witko v. Wietzema et al
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Patrick J. Schiltz on November 30, 2017. (CLG) cc: Two Bear on 11/30/2017 (LPH).
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
GRADY PEDERSON TWO BEARS, also
known as GRADY PEDERSON, also
known as SONIA TWO BEARS WITKO,
Case No. 17‐CV‐1272 (PJS/TNL)
STATE OF MINNESOTA; DEP’T OF
BCA; COUNTIES OF MURRAY,
NOBLES, COTTONWOOD, AND
SHERIFF’S DEP’TS OF ABOVE NAMED
COUNTIES; CITIES OF FULDA,
WORTHINGTON, WINDOM, AND
POLICE DEP’TS OF ABOVE NAMED
CITIES; and DECISIONS OF THE
Grady Pederson Two Bears, also known as Grady Pederson, also known
as Sonia Two Bears Witko, pro se.
On March 29, 2017, plaintiff Grady Pederson Two Bears (“Pederson”) filed a
complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ECF No. 1. Pederson also filed a motion for
leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) and a motion for appointment of counsel. ECF
Nos. 4‐5. After Magistrate Judge Tony N. Leung ordered Pederson to amend his
The second amended complaint in this action drops allegations against Christina
Wietzema, Inferior County Court Judge, Cottonwood County 56101, and Sheriff Deputy
Lacom. Compare ECF No. 1, with ECF No. 21.
complaint so that it would comply with the pleading requirements of 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), Pederson filed an amended complaint and renewed his prior motions
on October 19, 2017. ECF Nos. 16‐18.
In a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) dated November 2, 2017,
Judge Leung recommends dismissing the amended complaint for failure to state a
claim, denying Pederson’s IFP motions, and denying Pederson’s motions for
appointment of counsel. ECF No. 19. In response, Pederson objected to the R&R, filed a
second amended complaint, and once again renewed his prior motions. ECF
Nos. 20‐26. The Court has conducted a de novo review. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.
R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). Based on that review, the Court overrules Pederson’s objection,
adopts the R&R, and dismisses the action.
Pederson’s second amended complaint is nearly identical to his first amended
complaint. Compare ECF No. 16, with ECF No. 21. Although Pederson submitted a new
civil cover sheet, removed the cover pages, reordered certain pages, and resubmitted
50 pages of documentary evidence including handwritten annotations—all of which
were also appended to the first amended complaint—he failed to remedy the defects
carefully identified and described by Judge Leung. The main problem remains that
Pederson has failed to clearly allege that a particular defendant took a particular action
on a particular date that violated a particular provision of the United States
Constitution or a federal statute. An additional problem is that some of the actions
about which Pederson complains—such as being required to register as a predatory
offender—took place so long ago that any claim related to those actions would clearly
be barred by the applicable statute of limitations. In short, the second amended
complaint, like the first, “fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted.” 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
Based on all of the files, records, and proceedings herein, the Court OVERRULES
plaintiff’s objection [ECF No. 20] and ADOPTS the R&R [ECF No. 19]. Accordingly, IT
IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
This action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to state a
claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
Plaintiff’s motions for leave to proceed in forma pauperis [ECF Nos. 17, 22,
23] are DENIED.
Plaintiff’s motions for appointment of counsel [ECF Nos. 18, 24, 25, 26] are
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: November 30, 2017
s/Patrick J. Schiltz
Patrick J. Schiltz
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?