Boniecki v. Fox et al

Filing 7

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS In FULL. Boniecki's Complaint (Doc. 2) is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Clerk of Court shall close this matter and enter judgment pursuant to Rule 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Any appeal of this decision would not be taken in good faith. Copy mailed to Boniecki. Signed by Judge Dana L. Christensen on 6/3/2015. (HEG, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA
HELENA DIVISION

FILED
JUN 0 3 2015
C~'*_:.~ ~

c

District
......M· Of Montan~urt

CV 15-19-H-DLC

TED BONIECKI,

issou/a

Plaintiff,
ORDER

vs.
TIM FOX and STATE OF MONTANA,
Defendants.

United States Magistrate Judge John T. Johnston entered his Findings and
Recommendation on March 17, 2015 recommending that Boniecki' s Complaint be
dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted. Boniecki timely objected to the Findings and Recommendation and the
Court will conduct de nova review of the record. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). The
portions of the findings and recommendations not specifically objected to will be
reviewed for clear error. McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Bus. Mach.,
Inc., 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981). For the reasons listed below, the Court
adopts Judge Johnston's Findings and Recommendation in full.
Boniecki filed his Complaint claiming the use of the Law Enforcement
Information Network (LEIN) system violates his Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth
1

Amendment rights and his right to privacy. Boniecki first objects to Judge
Johnston's finding that the Complaint fails to state a claim, stating that he believes
he has a claim under the Fourth Amendment. However, Boniecki does not allege
that he has been subject to a traffic stop or LEIN search. Law enforcement
officers who see a license plate in plain view and use it to access non-private
information do not conduct a Fourth Amendment search. Johnson v. Duffy, 588
F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). Boniecki has failed to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted implicating his Fourth Amendment constitutional right.
Second, Boniecki objects to Judge Johnson's characterization that the
Complaint is incoherent and rambling, arguing that a jury would be able to
comprehend his Complaint. Whether or not a jury could comprehend Boniecki's
Complaint is irrelevant. Judge Johnston's characterization was in the context of
the pre-screening review required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). To the extent that
Boniecki is objecting to Judge Johnston's finding that his Complaint is frivolous,
Boniecki has failed to allege a constitutional violation as stated above. Further,
the Complaint names Tim Fox and the State of Montana as the sole defendants,
but does not allege a connection or link between the actions of the defendants and
the deprivation alleged.
Third, Boniecki objects to the case-law cited in Judge Johnston's Findings
2

and Recommendation on the grounds that they are not "jury cases" and states that
a jury should decide the law. (Doc. 6 at 1.) However, as stated above, Boniecki
has failed to allege violation of his constitutional rights and does not state a viable
claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Without a viable claim for relief, Boniecki does
not have anything to bring before a jury.
Lastly, Boniecki objects to Judge Johnston's finding that he has not alleged
that he was subject to a traffic stop and subsequent LEIN search. Boniecki states
that anytime he drives on the roads in the State of Montana he is potentially
subject to a LEIN license plate search. Bare allegations are insufficient grounds to
show entitlement to relief. Further, as stated above, plain view license plate
searches for non-private information does not constitute a Fourth Amendment
search. Boniecki' s Complaint would not be cured by the allegation of other facts.
There being no clear error in Judge Johnston's remaining Findings and
Recommendation,
IT IS ORDERED thatJudge Johnston's Findings and Recommendation
(Doc. 5) are ADOPTED IN FULL. Boniecki's Complaint (Doc. 2) is DISMISSED
WITH PREJUDICE.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall close this matter
and enter judgment pursuant to Rule 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
3

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the docket shall reflect that the Court
certifies pursuant to Fed.R.App.P. 24(a)(3)(A) that any appeal of this decision
would not be taken in good faith.
DATED this

3 f't! day of June, 201

Dana L. Christensen, Chief Judge
United States District Court

4