Heilman v. Workforce Safety, Bismarck, ND

Filing 7

ORDER of dismissal without prejudice. By Magistrate Judge Charles S. Miller, Jr. (BG) Copy to Robert Heilman on 7/25/2011. (rs)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA
SOUTHWESTERN DIVISION
Robert Heilman,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Work Force Safety,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER RE § 1915 SCREENING

Case No. 4:11-cv-059

On July 14, 2011, the plaintiff, Robert Heilman, filed a complaint along with an application
to proceed without prepayment of fees. For the reasons set forth below, the undersigned orders that
the complaint be dismissed without prejudice.
I.

BACKGROUND
Heilman used to work in the lawn services industry. On October 9, 2002, he apparently fell

off a ladder while trimming some shrubs, hedges, and trees. He injured his head, shoulders, neck,
and ribs. He has not worked since. He currently receives Social Security Disability Insurance
(SSDI) benefits. He initiated the above-entitled action on July 14, 2011, complaining that he is
unable to subsist on his SSDI benefits and that North Dakota Workforce Safety and Insurance (WSI)
should supplement his income or otherwise assist him with his bills.1 Specifically, he alleges:
I’m asking the court to help get total disabilities on workforce. I’m on SSDI already
for some time now. Get around $1,215.00 monthly. I think workforce to pay for
some lose wages. I was hurt in Oct. 9, 2002.... If I didn’t get hurt, I would ben
making per hour. I was making 9.00 per house. Others workers took over my job.
Round up making $15.00 per hour. With the injury fall behind on pay scale. If you
look at 40 hours a week. Come out to 2080 hour a year without overtime. That came
1

For the purposes of this report and recommendation, the undersigned presumes that WSI is the entity to
which Heilman is referring in both the caption and body of his complaint.

1

to $18,720 year. Overtime would been more. That why I’m asking lost wage. To
go and find work, having trouble getting a part time job. Because of the [illegibile],
I can’t get a job. One they hear about it, they ran other way. I went to three different
employment agency. Can’t seem to find me anything to fix my injuries. One think
I look at, I would been making around $31,2000. Can’t go week to week without
getting hurt. Now there other injury that took place back in 1995. It’s to the lower
back and rib. Now when I fall on other claim in 2002, cause more damage to the
lower back. Work force will not pay for it
***
Also having nightmare.... I like to get workforce to pay for the nightmare.
***
Some time I take pain killers. Like to make sure workforce pay for these bills. They
said they will take care of it. The chiropractor bills. They for two times a month.
Medicare pays for the rest. The July 10-16 2011, when twice so far. Medicare took
care of it. Workforce should be paying for all of it.
(Docket No. 1-1 (errors in original)).
II.

DISCUSSION
A.

Standard of Review

Proceedings in forma pauperis are governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1915, which provides that the
court may authorize the commencement of a suit without prepayment of fees by a person submitting
a financial affidavit evincing an inability to pay. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). Notwithstanding
financial eligibility, the court may dismiss a case at any time if it concludes the action is frivolous
or malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from
such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
In applying the provisions of § 1915(e)(2), the court must give the pro se complaint the
benefit of a liberal construction and not dismiss the complaint unless it is clear beyond doubt that
there is no set of facts that would entitle the plaintiff to relief. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520

2

(1972) (pro se complaints are “subject to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by
lawyers”); Atkinson v. Bohn, 91 F.3d 1127, 1128-29 (8th Cir. 1996). In construing the complaint,
the court must weigh all factual allegations in favor of the plaintiff, unless the facts alleged are
clearly baseless. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 31-33 (1992) (court may disregard factual
allegations that are clearly baseless, fanciful, fantastic, or delusional). “A complaint is frivolous if
it lacks an arguable basis in law or fact.” Martinez v. Turner, 977 F.2d 421, 423 (8th Cir. 1992)
(citing Nietske v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989)). “It lacks an arguable basis in law if the
claim is based on an indisputable meritless legal theory.” Id.
B.

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) Screening

Heilman’s complaint does not set forth a claim of constitutional dimension or allege a
violation of federal law. It merely asserts an entitlement to state worker’s compensation benefits.
Further, it does not establish an apparent basis for federal court jurisdiction. Finally, to the extent
that the complaint may be construed as a request for money damages from the state, the Eleventh
Amendment precludes this court from imposing such an award against the state or one of its
agencies. See Hopkins v. Saunders, 93 F.3d 522, 526 (8th Cir. 1996) (“The Eleventh Amendment
prohibits a citizen from suing a state for money damages in federal court.”); see also Graves v.
Stone, 25 Fed. Appx. 488 (8th Cir. 2002) (recognizing that the Eleventh Amendment bars suits
brought in federal court by an individual against a state or its agencies)

3

III.

CONCLUSION
Heilman has neither stated a claim upon which relief can be granted nor established a basis

for this court’s exercise of jurisdiction over this matter. His complaint (Docket No. 6) is therefore
DISMISSED without prejudice subject to the filing of a paid complaint.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 25th day of July, 2011.
/s/ Charles S. Miller, Jr.
Charles S. Miller, Jr.
United States Magistrate Judge

4