Knox v. Aldridge et al

Filing 12

OPINION AND ORDER by District Judge James H. Payne; Dismissing this case in all respects and finding all pending motions are denied as moot; finding as moot 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis; finding as moot 8 Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis; finding as moot 9 Motion for Miscellaneous Relief; finding as moot 10 Motion for Miscellaneous Relief; finding as moot 11 Motion for Miscellaneous Relief (lsa, Chambers)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
ANTONE L. KNOX, Plaintiff, v. DEBRA ALDRIDGE, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. CIV 10-044-JHP-SPS

OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff, an inmate in the custody of the Oklahoma Department of Corrections (DOC) who is incarcerated at Oklahoma State Penitentiary (OSP) in McAlester, Oklahoma, brings this action under the authority of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, seeking relief for alleged constitutional violations during his incarceration at that facility. He has listed potentially more than 90 defendants: Debra Aldridge, OSP D&E-Unit Manager; Amy Thomas, OSP D-Unit Manager; Brian Holden, OSP D-Unit Mental Health Officer; Bruce H. White, OSP D&H-Unit Mental Health Officer; Troy Monks, OSP D-Unit Mental Health Officer; Donna Bond, OSP Private Re-entry Coordinator; Crysta Pink-Roberts, OSP Credit Units Manager; Chris Etchison; OSP D-Unit Security Manager; Tracy Davis, OSP H-Unit Manager; William Taylor, OSP A-Unit Manager; Darrell Wilson, OSP F-Unit Cellhouse Manager; Arthur F. Woodmore, OSP EUnit Mental Health Case Manager; Robert B. Watkins, OSP Law Library Officer; Jack Pogue, OSP D&E-Unit Shift Lieutenant; Patti Santine, OSP D & E-Unit Mental Health Nurse; Meredith Harris, OSP A-Unit Case Manager; Jessica Smith, OSP Unit Case Manager; Connie Taylor, OSP Private Registered Nurse; Crista Kampas, OSP Medical Services Nurse Manager; Shonda Kelleg-Carney, OSP D-Unit Mental Health Correctional Officer; Dale

Cantrell, OSP Disciplinary Officer; Randall G. Workman, OSP Warden; Justin Jones, DOC Director; Sandra Estes, OSP Administrative Assistant; Debbie Morton, DOC Director's Designee; Terry Crenshaw, OSP Warden's Assistant; Linda Morgan, OSP Deputy Warden; Bobby Boone, DOC Eastern Region Deputy Director; Amanda Workman, OSP Dental Assistant; Wayne Sockey, OSP Dentist; K. Mordecay, OSP D-Unit Mental Health Correctional Officer; P. Nickels, OSP Medical Services; Edward Workman, OSP D-Unit Mental Health; N. Heldermon, OSP D-Unit Mental Health Cadet; David Orman, OSP Post Office Supervisor; Capt. Dedmon, OSP Security Manager; Carrie Hansley, OSP, D, E, & HUnit Shift Lieutenant.; Emma Watts, JBCC Warden; Mike Oakley, DOC Deputy Director of Legal Service; Johnny Blevins, DOC Administrator; Lisa E. Endres, Oklahoma Assistant Attorney General; Jill Tsiakilos, Oklahoma Assistant Attorney General; Kim Rutter, Oklahoma Assistant Attorney General; Kindanne C. Jones, Oklahoma Assistant Attorney General; Drew Edmondson, Oklahoma Attorney General; Melissa Briggs, U.S. Department of Justice; Richard Farber, U.S. Department of Justice; Eric Holder, U.S. Attorney General; Sheldon Sperling, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Oklahoma; Barack Obama, U.S. President; Hillary R. Clinton, U.S. Secretary of State; Mary Fallin, Oklahoma U.S. Representative; Oprah Winfrey; Martha Stewart; Brad Henry, Governor of Oklahoma; Robert Mueller, FBI Director; James Finch, FBI Special Agent; Steven P. Shreder, U.S. Magistrate Judge EDOK; Ronald A. White; District Judge for the Eastern District of Oklahoma; Judge James D. Bland, Pittsburg County District Judge; DC Circuit Judges; Nine Unknown D.C. Circuit Judges; Tenth Circuit Court Judges; John William Loyd, U.S. Marshal for the Eastern District of Oklahoma; Nancy Pelossi, Speaker of the House of Representative; and Joseph Biden, U.S. Vice President. 2

Plaintiff has filed an almost illegible, 371-page complaint that includes 268 pages of exhibits [Docket #1]. He apparently is alleging the defendants have conspired against him and interfered with his civil rights in retaliation for his previous litigation. He claims the defendants have intimidated and threatened him, attempted to murder him, and obstructed his access to the courts [Docket #1 at 2]. These violations allegedly have been ignored by federal and state judges and attorney, FBI agents, and the President. Id. As best as the court can read plaintiff's handwriting, he is requesting the following relief: Due process be render [sic] & the submission of the physical evidence of the Holiday card (not copies) be provided & the stamp [sic] envelope that the card was in or dismiss/expunge misconduct report & etc. for the destruction of this evidence & urgently request a [sic] evidentiary hearing on these grounds etc. & injunction & T.R.O. hearings urgently. [Docket #1 at 78]. The court has reviewed the record and construes plaintiff's pro se pleadings liberally. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972). This relaxed standard, however, does not relieve his burden of alleging sufficient facts on which a recognized legal claim could be based. Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). Although plaintiff has not paid the filing fee in this action or been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis, this court is empowered to dismiss the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A: (a) Screening.--The court shall review, before docketing, if feasible or, in any event, as soon as practicable after docketing, a complaint in a civil action in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. (b) Grounds for dismissal.--On review, the court shall identity cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint-(1) is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief 3

may be granted; or (2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Here, the court finds plaintiff's claims against the numerous defendants, including judges, elected officials, and celebrities who could not possibly be connected to the alleged civil rights violations, are frivolous and malicious. Therefore, summary dismissal is appropriate. ACCORDINGLY, this action is, in all respects, DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). All pending motions are DENIED as moot. IT IS SO ORDERED this 6th day of May 2010.

4