Siers v. Daugaard
ORDER Dismissing Case. Signed by U.S. District Judge Karen E. Schreier on 6/10/2014. (KC)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA
DENNIS DAUGAARD, Governor of
South Dakota, in his individual and
Plaintiff, Donovan Siers, is an inmate at the Mike Durfee State Prison
(MDSP) in Springfield, South Dakota. Siers filed a pro se civil rights lawsuit
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Dockets 1, 4. On March 6, 2014, the court
granted Siers leave to proceed in forma pauperis and ordered him to pay an
initial partial filing fee by April 7, 2014. Docket 6. Siers has since paid the filing
fee. Additionally, Siers has filed two separate motions to amend or correct his
complaint. Dockets 11, 13.
The court must now screen Siers’s complaint to determine whether any
claims should be dismissed. Pursuant to the PLRA, the court must dismiss an
action or any portion thereof if the prisoner has raised a claim that “(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 from such
relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)–(iii).
STANDARD OF REVIEW
A claim “is frivolous where it lacks an arguable basis in law or in fact.”
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). The court may, therefore, dismiss
a claim as frivolous when it is “based on an indisputably meritless legal theory”
or where the factual contentions “are clearly baseless.” Id. at 327. The court
may dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim when the plaintiff fails to
plead “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell
Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). In reviewing a complaint for
failure to state a claim, “[t]he court must presume that the factual allegations in
the complaint are true and accord all reasonable inferences from those facts to
the [pleader].” Valiant-Bey v. Morris, 829 F.2d 1441, 1443 (8th Cir. 1987) (citing
Holloway v. Lockhart, 792 F.2d 760, 762 (8th Cir. 1986)).
Pro se complaints, “ ‘however inartfully pleaded,’ [are] held to ‘less
stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.’ ” Estelle v.
Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976) (quoting Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520
(1972)); see also Frey v. City of Herculaneum, 44 F.3d 667, 671 (8th Cir. 1995)
(noting that “civil rights pleadings should be construed liberally”). Nonetheless,
a pro se complaint must comply with the minimal requirements set forth in the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which specifically require pleadings to contain
“a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to
relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Although a pro se complaint need not contain
detailed factual allegations, it must contain “more than labels and conclusions,
and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.”
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. Simply stated, a pro se complaint must “allege facts
sufficient to support the claims advanced.” Stone v. Harry, 364 F.3d 912, 914
(8th Cir. 2004). The court is not required to “supply additional facts, nor will [it]
construct a legal theory that assumes facts that have not been pleaded.” Id.
(citing Dunn v. White, 880 F.2d 1188, 1197 (10th Cir. 1989)). If the complaint
does not contain these bare essentials, dismissal is appropriate. Beavers v.
Lockhart, 755 F.2d 657, 663 (8th Cir. 1985).
“[T]o state a claim for relief under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege sufficient
facts to show ‘(1) that the defendant(s) acted under color of state law, and (2)
that the alleged wrongful conduct deprived the plaintiff of a constitutionally
protected federal right.’ ” Zutz v. Nelson, 601 F.3d 842, 848 (8th Cir. 2010)
(quoting Schmidt v. City of Bella Villa, 557 F.3d 564, 571 (8th Cir. 2009)). Here,
Siers claims that defendant Daugaard violated his rights under the Fourth,
Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments by refusing to address the
unconstitutional, ex post facto state laws that put Siers and nearly four
hundred other individuals in prison. Docket 1 at 4. To remedy these alleged
constitutional violations, Siers requests that the court release him from prison,
have defendant Daugaard impeached, and require defendant to pay for this
action. Id. at 5.
The primary issue raised by Siers’s complaint relates to the legality or
constitutionality of his original conviction and subsequent confinement. As the
United States Supreme Court has noted, “habeas corpus is the exclusive
remedy for a state prisoner who challenges the fact or duration of his
confinement and seeks immediate or speedier release, even though such a
claim may come within the literal terms of § 1983.” Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S.
477, 481 (1994) (citing Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 488–90 (1973)).
Therefore, because Siers is challenging the fact of his confinement and seeks to
be released from prison, he has failed to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted pursuant to § 1983. His sole remedy is a writ of habeas corpus.
This will be the third time this court has dismissed one of Siers’s
complaints pursuant to the screening procedures of 28 U.S.C. § 1915. The
Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) reads as follows:
In no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action or appeal a
judgment in a civil action or proceeding under this section if the
prisoner has, on 3 or more prior occasions, while incarcerated or
detained in any facility, brought an action or appeal in a court of
the United States that was dismissed on the grounds that it is
frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may
be granted, unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious
28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) (emphasis added). Siers has previously proceeded in forma
pauperis in two other cases that this court dismissed for failure to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted. See Civ. 14-4018; Civ. 14-4028. Thus, Siers
is henceforth ineligible to litigate in forma pauperis unless he demonstrates
that he is in “imminent danger of seriously physical injury.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(g). Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that Siers’s complaint (Docket 1) is dismissed for failure to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
Siers is notified that he may not file any additional civil cases in forma pauperis
unless he is “under imminent danger of serious physical injury” as set forth at
28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Siers may still file civil cases if the complaint is
accompanied by the $400 filing fee applicable to civil actions.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Siers’s motions to amend or correct
complaint (Dockets 11, 13) are denied as moot.
Dated June 10, 2014.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Karen E. Schreier
KAREN E. SCHREIER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?