Raynor v. Wentz et al

Filing 8

OPINION AND ORDER by Judge Ronald A. White dismissing case with prejudice (terminates case) (law, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA L in d a Raynor, Plaintiff, v. B ill Wentz, et al., D e f e n d a n ts . O P I N I O N AND ORDER T h e complaint in this matter [Docket No. 1] was filed on June 4, 2009. It is entitled " C o n s p ira c y Leading to the Premeditated Murder of Candice Raynor 10/01/2006." Plaintiff a lle g e s that the various defendants conspired to keep her daughter "in the system" by labeling th e Plaintiff as "mentally damaged and unfit to be a mother." On June 15, 2009, Plaintiff f ile d her Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis [Docket No. 4]. Plaintiff was d ire c te d to supplement her motion [Docket No. 5] and her Supplement was timely filed [ D o c k e t No. 6]. On July 6, 2009, Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis w a s granted [Docket No. 7]. Plaintiff's complaint* is a rambling list of accusations against the Defendants, all of w h ich were allegedly involved in some manner in a dispute over the custody of Plaintiff's m ino r child while in Virginia. Indeed, some people listed in the caption of the pleading are n o t even mentioned in the body of the complaint. Of those Defendants mentioned, all were The court construes Plaintiff's allegation liberally as she is pro se. See Haines v. K e rn e r, 404 U.S. 519 (1972).
*

C as e No. 09-CIV-223-RAW

e m p lo ye e s of the court system, employees of the child welfare agency, Plaintiff's own c o u n se lo r, Candice's physician and even Plaintiff's own counsel, etc. Plaintiff lists a few D e f en d a n ts by name, and then states "Have all been involved in the cover-up of Candice R a yn o r murder. Therefore they are part of the conspiracy." Although Plaintiff's arguments involve a child custody matter which ended tragically, th e y are similar to what the Tenth Circuit had rejected as the "hackneyed tax protester re f ra in ." United States v. Chisum, 502 F.3d 1237, 1243 (10 th Cir. 2007). Plaintiff's a rg u m e n ts are "completely lacking in legal merit and patently frivolous." Lonsdale v. United S ta te s , 919 F.2d 1440, 1448 (10 th Cir. 1990). 2 8 U.S.C. § 1915 S e c tio n 1915 of the United States Code, Title 28, states as follows: (2 ) Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been p a id , the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that­ (A ) the allegation of poverty is untrue; or (B) the action or appeal-(I) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune f ro m such relief. 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915(e)(2). A complaint is frivolous "where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact." F u r th e r, the term frivolous "embraces not only the inarguable legal conclusion, but also the f a n c if u l factual allegation." Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). A plaintiff is 2

n o t required to make out a perfect case in their complaint. Rather, "It suffices for him to s ta te claims that are rationally related to the existing law and the credible factual allegations." L e m m o n s v. Law Firm of Morris and Morris, 39 F.3d 264 (10 th Cir. 1994). S u a Sponte Dismissal " S u a sponte dismissals are generally disfavored by the courts." Banks v. Vio S o f t w a r e , 275 Fed.Appx. 800 (10 th Circ. 2008). A court shall dismiss a case at any time, h o w e v e r, if the court determines that the action fails to state a claim on which relief may be g ra n te d , or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U .S .C . § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and (iii). Indeed, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals has stated that a district court is required to dismiss an IFP claim that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief m a y be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. T ru jillo v. Williams, 465 F.3d 1210, 1216 n.5 (10 th Cir. 2006). T h e court may sua sponte dismiss an action pursuant to § 1915 when "on the face of th e complaint it clearly appears that the action is frivolous or malicious." Hall v. Bellmon, 9 3 5 F.2d 1106, 1108 (10th Cir. 1991). "The term `frivolous' refers to `the inarguable legal c o n c lu s io n ' and `the fanciful factual allegation.'" Id. (citation omitted). Further, a "trial c o u rt may dismiss a claim sua sponte without notice where the claimant cannot possibly win re lie f ." McKinney v. State of Oklahoma, 925 F.2d 363, 364 (10 th Cir. 1991).

3

C o n c lu s io n T h e court does not take lightly its decision in this matter. Plaintiff has obviously had to face very difficult circumstances which are the subject of this lawsuit. The allegations lis te d in her complaint, however, do not create a claim upon which this lawsuit can proceed. T h e court finds that Plaintiff's action is frivolous, that Plaintiff fails to state a claim o n which relief can be granted, and that Plaintiff seeks monetary relief against Defendants w h o are immune from such relief. This matter is dismissed with prejudice. Dated this 14th day of July, 2009.

D a te d this 14 t h Day of July 2009.

j4 h 4 i0

4