McCallum v. High Desert State Prison
Filing
3
ORDER that this action shall be DISMISSED without prejudice. The Clerk shall SEND plaintiff a copy of the complaint and pauper forms and instructions along with a copy of the papers that he submitted in this action. The Clerk shall enter final judgment accordingly, dismissing this action without prejudice. Signed by Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 5/10/13. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
1
2
3
JAMES KENNETH MCCALLUM,
4
Plaintiff,
2:13-cv-00815-GMN-GWF
5
vs.
6
ORDER
7
8
HIGH DESERT STATE PRISON,,
Defendant.
9
10
11
12
13
This prisoner civil action comes before the Court for initial review under 28 U.S.C. §
1915A.
The papers presented are subject to substantial defects, including defects discussed
infra going to the viability of the claims presented and relief sought.
14
At the outset, plaintiff did not either pay the filing fee or file an application to proceed
15
in forma pauperis. Plaintiff asserts in a notice (#2) filed with the complaint that he is unable
16
to submit a pauper application because he is accusing prison personnel of major federal
17
crimes, including mail theft which is discussed infra; and he therefore “can not trust anyone
18
for anything in here,” including personnel in the prison law library. An allegation of mail theft
19
does not excuse plaintiff from obtaining the required materials and submitting a pauper
20
application to the Court – just as he obtained the complaint form for the present complaint and
21
filed it with the Court. High Desert State Prison inmates file numerous complaints each year
22
alleging wrongdoing by prison personnel and nonetheless successfully submit a pauper
23
application. Plaintiff must do the same.
24
This improperly-commenced action therefore will be dismissed without prejudice. In
25
doing so, the Court notes that it does not appear that a dismissal without prejudice will result
26
in a promptly filed and properly commenced action being untimely or otherwise result in
27
substantial prejudice.
28
In this regard, the Court notes that it does not appear that plaintiff presents a viable
1
complaint in any event.
2
First, plaintiff may not proceed against the only named defendant, High Desert State
3
Prison. The prison is a building or facility, not a juridical entity subject to suit. While plaintiff
4
refers to multiple categories of alleged wrongdoers, he cannot pursue a claim against broad-
5
based categories described only as “correctional officers,” “administrative staff,” “mailroom
6
personnel,” and “legal library personnel.” He particularly may not do so in a situation where,
7
as discussed below, plaintiff’s allegations that any particular individual or group of persons
8
engaged in wrongdoing is based solely on speculation.
9
Second, as alluded to, plaintiff’s allegations that his outgoing mail – to nonjudicial
10
recipients unrelated to pending prisoner civil rights litigation – has been tampered with is
11
based upon hearsay and speculation. He relies upon hearsay by persons outside the prison
12
that they have not received the alleged mail together with speculation that some unknown
13
individual or individuals in the prison has intercepted and stolen his mail. Plaintiff states in
14
Count I that “I’ve listed all departments and positions I can think of who handle inmate mail,”
15
which signifies that he has nothing more than speculation to go on. As plaintiff states in
16
Count III, “I can not specificly [sic] list any certain person or entity but it is obvious someone
17
or others are responsible, unless it’s the US Postal Service itself.” Such bare speculation
18
does not state a claim upon which relief may be granted against any identifiable defendant.
19
Third, plaintiff’s allegations that he is receiving forged mail similarly are based upon
20
ungrounded speculation. Plaintiff was advised that the attorney’s secretary sometimes signed
21
her name for her. Plaintiff states in Count II that “I find that incredably [sic] hard to believe
22
[that] an attorney would have someone else sign their name” and that “[w]ith today’s
23
technology anyone can make anything look authentic.” Such speculation states no claim.
24
Fourth, in all events, plaintiff seeks relief that this Court does not have the power to
25
grant. He requests “[c]riminal prosecution of all responsible parties,” [r]eturn of all mail and
26
copyright material,” and “refer[ral] to civil court for civil litigation.” He further states that “[i]f
27
anything, the proper authorities should be notified.” This Court cannot investigate and
28
prosecute crimes, much less against unidentified persons; it has no authority to refer general
-2-
1
allegations of alleged crime to law enforcement authorities; it cannot search for, secure, and
2
return mail and material; and it cannot refer the matter to some other unspecified “civil court”
3
for “civil litigation.”
4
This improperly-commenced action therefore will be dismissed without prejudice, as
5
no prejudice of substance could result from the dismissal of the complaint presented without
6
prejudice.1
7
IT THEREFORE IS ORDERED that this action shall be DISMISSED without
8
prejudice. If plaintiff seeks to pursue an action, he must file a new complaint in a new action
9
with a pauper application with all required financial attachments. The present action is closed.
10
The Clerk of Court shall SEND plaintiff a copy of the complaint and pauper forms and
11
12
13
14
instructions along with a copy of the papers that he submitted in this action.
The Clerk of Court shall enter final judgment accordingly, dismissing this action without
prejudice.
DATED this 10th day of May, 2013.
15
16
___________________________________
Gloria M. Navarro
United States District Judge
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
The Court notes that it previously dismissed an action by James Kenneth McCallum in which he
alleged, inter alia, that he was being tortured and subjected to mind control by jailers with “unknown scientific
instruments” that he could not see. The Court dismissed the fanciful and delusional action as frivolous. See
No. 2:06-cv-00456-RCJ-RJJ, in which plaintiff identified himself as James Kenneth McCallum on the first
page of the complaint.
-3-
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?