Howell v. Oklahoma Highway Patrol
Filing
7
OPINION AND ORDER by Judge John E Dowdell ; dismissing/terminating case (terminates case) ; finding as moot 6 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction; finding as moot 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (Re: 5 Amended Complaint ) (SAS, Chambers)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISCTICT OF OKLAHOMA
MARC DEWAYNE HOWELL,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
v.
OKLAHOMA HIGHWAY PATROL
Defendant.
Case No. 14-CV-639-JED-PJC
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. 1) and motion to
proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2). Plaintiff Marc Dewayne Howell proceeds pro se, against
defendant Oklahoma Highway Patrol. In support thereof Mr. Howell cites 76 O.S. § 1, 18 U.S.C.
§ 242, “Title 21-Part 4- U.S.C. 1983”, the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the
United States Constitution, and 42 U.S.C.A. §1983.1
Plaintiff alleges that he was subjected to an illegal search or seizure and deprived of his
due process rights. His complaint purportedly stems from an incident occurring in May 2000,
when he was driving northbound on Oklahoma Interstate Highway 35 in Garvin County,
Oklahoma. Plaintiff states that he passed an unnamed Oklahoma Highway Patrol Officer, who
then drove past Howell while “leaning forward and looking at [him] in an intimidating and
threatening manner.” (Doc. 1). The plaintiff also alleges that the trooper pulled him over but
provides no facts as to the traffic stop in his complaint. Plaintiff seeks $4,000,000 in damages for
this threatening scowl which allegedly occurred nearly a decade and a half ago.
1
Mr. Howell filed an amendment to his complaint (Doc. 5) stating that he is no longer relying
upon Title 21.
1
While pro se pleadings are liberally construed, Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520
(1972); Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991), a pro se plaintiff must comply
with the fundamental requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Ogden v. San Juan
County, 32 F.3d 452, 455 (10th Cir. 1994). A plaintiff’s pro se status likewise does not excuse
his obligation to comply with the requirements of substantive law. See McNeil v. United States,
508 U.S. 106, 113 (1993).
In considering dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6), this Court must determine whether the
plaintiff stated a claim upon which relief may be granted. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). The
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require “a short and plain statement of the claim to show that
the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). A complaint must provide “more than
labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action.” Bell
Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). The standard does “not require a
heightened fact pleading of specifics, but only enough facts to state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face,” and the factual allegations “must be enough to raise a right to relief above
the speculative level.” Id. at 555-56, 570 (citations omitted). For the purpose of making the
dismissal determination, this Court must accept all the well-pleaded factual allegations of the
complaint as true, even if doubtful, and must construe the allegations in the light most favorable
to the claimant. See id. at 555; Alvarado v. KOB-TV, L.L.C., 493 F.3d 1210, 1215 (10th Cir.
2007).
The crux of the Plaintiff’s complaint is that he was deprived of his due process rights and
subjected to an unreasonable search and seizure because he was looked at in a menacing way and
pulled over by an Oklahoma Highway Patrol Trooper. Nothing in the complaint amounts to an
2
unlawful search or seizure or a violation of any other right. Because the Plaintiff has not stated a
valid claim, his complaint against the Oklahoma Highway Patrol must be dismissed.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the complaint is dismissed. A separate judgment
of dismissal will be entered herewith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis (Doc. 2) and plaintiff’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 6) are moot.
SO ORDERED this 18th day of November, 2014.
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?