Blue Bird v. Leningren et al
Filing
17
ORDER granting 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis; denying 5 Motion to amend; and dismissing count I of the complaint. Signed by Chief Judge Jeffrey L. Viken on 3/9/16. (SB)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA
WESTERN DIVISION
CHARLES BLUE BIRD,
Plaintiff,
vs.
CIV. 15-5022-JLV
ORDER GRANTING IN FORMA
PAUPERIS
JUDGE HIEDI LENINGREN, JUDGE
THOMAS TRIMIBLE, JUDGE ROBERT
A. MANDEL, JUDGE JEFF W. DAVIS,
D.C.I. TRACEY DOLLISON DECKER,
D.C.I. ROBERT BURMAN, R.C.P.D.
DAVID COLLINS, KELLY
VENEKLASEN, D.C.I. KIETH
CARLSON, CHIEF KEVIN THOM,
GOVERNOR DENNIS DAUGAARD,
CLERK OF COURTS RANAE TRUMAN,
CLERK OF COURTS HEATHER
SUZANNA, JESSE CULBERTSON,
CASEY KENDRICK, P.C.J. CAPT.
HAGA, P.C.J. C.O. STEEL, and S.G.T.
STEEL,
Defendants.
Plaintiff Charles Blue Bird, an inmate at the Pennington County Jail in
Rapid City, South Dakota, filed a multiple count complaint against the
defendants. (Docket 1). Mr. Blue Bird moves for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis and submitted a current copy of his prisoner trust account report.
(Dockets 2 & 3).
Section 1915 of Title 28 of the United States Code, as amended by the
Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), governs proceedings filed in forma
pauperis. When a prisoner files a civil action in forma pauperis, the PLRA
requires a prisoner to pay an initial partial filing fee when possible. See
28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). The initial partial filing fee is calculated according to
§ 1915(b)(1), which requires a payment of 20 percent of the greater of:
(A) the average monthly deposits to the prisoner’s account; or
(B) the average monthly balance in the prisoner’s account for
the 6-month period immediately preceding the filing of the
complaint or notice of appeal.
Id.
In support of his motion, Mr. Blue Bird provided a copy of his prisoner
trust account report signed by an authorized prison official. (Docket 4). The
report shows an average monthly deposit for the past six months of $20.00, an
average monthly balance for the past six months of $0.00, and a current balance
of $0.00. Id. In light of this information, the court finds Mr. Blue Bird is
indigent, qualifies for in forma pauperis status and is not required to make an
initial partial filing fee payment. These findings do not discharge the $350 filing
fee but rather allow a prisoner the opportunity to pay the filing fee in
installments. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1) (“[I]f a prisoner brings a civil action or
files an appeal in forma pauperis, the prisoner shall be required to pay the full
amount of the filing fee.”).
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the court must review a prisoner complaint and
identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint if it is frivolous, malicious or
fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. This screening process
“applies to all civil complaints filed by [a] prisoner[], regardless of payment of
[the] filing fee.” Lewis v. Estes, 242 F.3d 375 at *1 (8th Cir. 2000) (unpublished)
2
(citing Carr v. Dvorin, 171 F.3d 115, 116 (2d Cir. 1999). During this initial
screening process, the court must dismiss the complaint in its entirety or in part
if the complaint is “frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted” or “seeks monetary relief [from] a defendant who is immune
from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).
“[A] complaint, containing as it does both factual allegations and legal
conclusions, is frivolous where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.
. . . § 1915(d)’s term ‘frivolous,’ when applied to a complaint, embraces not only
the inarguable legal conclusion, but also the fanciful factual allegation.”
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). The court may dismiss a
complaint under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and § 1915A(b)(1) as frivolous because “the
statute accords judges not only the authority to dismiss a claim based on an
indisputably meritless legal theory, but also the unusual power to pierce the veil
of the complaint’s factual allegations and dismiss those claims whose factual
contentions are clearly baseless.” Id. at 327.
Because Mr. Blue Bird is proceeding pro se, his pleading must be liberally
construed and his complaint, “however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less
stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Erickson v.
Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
Mr. Blue Bird used a Civil Rights Complaint By A Prisoner form. (Docket
1). Under Section A. Jurisdiction, Mr. Blue Bird did not check the box asserting
jurisdiction under 1(a) 28 U.S.C. § 1343(a)(3), or 42 U.S.C. § 1983; or
1(b) 28 U.S.C. § 1331, or Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Narcotics Agents, 403
3
U.S. 388 (1971); or 1(c) Other. Id. at p. 1(a), (b) & (c). After “Other: (Please
specify.)” Mr. Blue Bird wrote “Blue Bird vs Hiedi Leningren.” Id. The court’s
analysis presumes Mr. Blue Bird intended to bring this action under § 1983.
Mr. Blue Bird’s complaint contains three separate counts. Count 1
alleges his “Constitutional Rights Violated [and] Civil Rights as a Human Being
were violated.” (Docket 1 at p. 4). On the complaint form for the designation of
the issues presented, Mr. Blue Bird checked “Retaliation” and “Other,” after
which he wrote “Harassment Racism Cruel & Unusual Punishment.” Id.
Mr. Blue Bird claims that jail employees accepted bribes. Id. He claims he was
harassed by jail employees, including those paid by “agents” to coerce him into a
plea deal. Id. Mr. Blue Bird alleges he was harassed and pushed by SGT Steel
and choked by C.O. Steel. Id. Mr. Blue Bird claims injuries of “mental, stress,
emotion[al] distress, can’t sleep at night[.]” Id.
Count 2 alleges “Constitutional Rights were violated [and] Civil Rights as a
Human Being [were] violated.” (Docket 1 at p. 5). On the complaint form for
the designation of the issues presented, Mr. Blue Bird checked “Other” and wrote
“Discrimination.” Id. He alleges he was forced to give a urine sample in
violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. Id. He complains that South
Dakota Governor Dennis Daugaard and Kevin Thom had him extradited from
Oregon. Id. He alleges Jesse Culbertson made a false report and had him
arrested. Id. He complains about Congress stealing the Black Hills from the
Lakota as well as racism and oppression in general. Id. Mr. Blue Bird claims
4
injuries of “traumatize, mental, stress, suffer & pain[,] can’t sleep at night [and]
emotional distress.” Id.
Count 3 alleges “Constitutional Rights Violated [and] Civil Rights as a
Human Being” were violated. (Docket 1 at p. 6). On the complaint form for
designation of the issues presented, Mr. Blue Bird checked “Other” and wrote
“Discrimination accepting briberys [sic] officers.” Id. He alleges that defendant
judges accepted bribes, committed racial profiling and human trafficking,
violated his Fourth Amendment rights, and violated due process by forcing him
to provide a urine sample and extraditing him from Oregon. Id. Mr. Blue Bird
alleges that the jail staff threatened his life in order to force him to provide a
urine sample and took the sample by force. Id. Mr. Blue Bird claims injuries
of “Headaches, traumatize, suffer & pain Mental, Post traumatic stress[.]” Id.
In the request for relief section of the complaint, Mr. Blue Bird seeks
money damages of five million dollars. Id. at p. 7.
The essential elements of any § 1983 claim are: (1) violation of a
constitutional right, (2) committed by a state actor, (3) who acted with the
requisite culpability and causation to violate the constitutional right. Shrum ex
rel. Kelly v. Kluck, 249 F.3d 773, 777 (8th Cir. 2001). Mr. Blue Bird’s complaint
contains only insufficient repetitive, unsupported accusations that the
defendants harmed him. “Threadbare recitals . . . supported by mere
conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678
(2009) (citations omitted). Mr. Blue Bird’s complaint alleges only general,
5
unsupported claims of racism and oppression, jailhouse harassment and
retaliation, improper extradition from Oregon and the unauthorized taking of his
urine. Each count is addressed in turn.
Count 1 of Mr. Blue Bird’s complaint fails to state a claim of retaliation
upon which relief may be granted. “At a minimum . . . a complaint must contain
facts sufficient to state a claim as a matter of law and must not be merely
conclusory in its allegations.” Springdale Educ. Ass’n v. Springdale Sch. Dist.,
133 F.3d 649, 651 (8th Cir. 1998). A complaint that fails to “allege sufficient
facts upon which a retaliatory animus could be inferred” should be dismissed.
Atkinson v. Bohn, 91 F.3d 1127, 1129 (8th Cir. 1996). Mr. Blue Bird does
nothing more than state that defendants retaliated against him. The
supplemental documents provided by Mr. Blue Bird demonstrate that he was
punished for numerous rule infractions. (See Dockets 6 at pp. 8-10; 8; 9; 10;
11; 12; 13; 14; 15; & 16). Because his complaint does not state sufficient facts,
Mr. Blue Bird fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted in count 1.
Counts 2 and 3 of Mr. Blue Bird’s complaint, at this juncture, fail to state
a claim upon which relief may be granted. Mr. Blue Bird alleges jailhouse
harassment and retaliation, improper extradition from Oregon and the
unauthorized taking of his urine. Mr. Blue Bird complains his Fourth
Amendment and due process rights were violated when he was extradited from
Oregon. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held § 1983
“provides a remedy for improper extradition in violation of the extradition clause
6
and statute.” Brown v. Nutsch, 619 F.2d 758, 764 (8th Cir. 1980). However,
the court also reasoned:
Where the alleged fugitive has been subsequently constitutionally
convicted in the demanding state, something more than mere
noncompliance with the extradition statutes would have to be
shown to provide a basis for compensatory damages, since if there is
probable cause to arrest that person and try him on charges pending
in the demanding state and he is subsequently convicted, there
appears to be no basis for damages absent special circumstances or
physical harm.
Id.
Mr. Blue Bird’s complaint, liberally construed, argues that his extradition
violated the federal extradition clause and statute. Mr. Blue Bird does not
provide any facts concerning the circumstances of his extradition. He only
makes conclusory statements which are insufficient. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at
678. At this juncture, the court is unable to determine whether Mr. Blue Bird’s
constitutional rights were violated by his extradition from Oregon.
Mr. Blue Bird also claims that the taking of his urine sample violated his
constitutional rights. The Eighth Circuit held that random urinalysis testing of
inmates does not violate the Fourth Amendment because the testing furthers the
prison’s legitimate security interest and inmates have diminished expectations of
privacy. Levine v. Roebuck, 550 F.3d 684, 687 (8th Cir. 2008) (citing Spence v.
Farrier, 807 F.2d 753, 755 (8th Cir. 1986)). Mr. Blue Bird does not explain why
he was subjected to a urinalysis, who performed it or where he was tested.
7
Without more specific information, the court is unable to determine whether
Mr. Blue Bird’s constitutional rights were violated by the taking of his urine.
All of Mr. Blue Bird’s claims against defendant judges named in count 3
fail due to the doctrine of judicial immunity. Judges are immune from suit,
including § 1983 suits, with two narrow exceptions. “First, a judge is not
immune from liability for nonjudicial actions, i.e., actions not taken in the
judge’s judicial capacity. Second, a judge is not immune for actions, though
judicial in nature, taken in the complete absence of all jurisdiction.” Schottel v.
Young, 687 F.3d 370, 373 (8th Cir. 2012) (quoting Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9,
11-12 (1991)). Mr. Blue Bird alleged no facts indicating that either exception
applies to his case. Mr. Blue Bird fails to state a claim on which relief may be
granted against any of the defendant judges.
Before dismissing a complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted pursuant to the screening provisions of 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915 and
1915A, the court must grant plaintiff leave to amend his complaint unless
amendment would be inequitable or futile. Because Mr. Blue Bird’s allegedly
unlawful extradition and urine collection may give rise to valid § 1983 claims, the
court grants him twenty-one (21) days to amend those portions of his second and
third claims. Mr. Blue Bird should identify, with specificity, the factual
circumstances surrounding each claim. The court finds the remainder of Mr.
Blue Bird’s claims are frivolous and fail to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted. See Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327.
8
Although the court has not yet assessed Mr. Blue Bird a strike under
§ 1915 (g) for filing his complaint, Mr. Blue Bird is warned that the court reviews
prisoner complaints to determine if they are frivolous, malicious or unfounded.
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 physical injury.
28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that Mr. Blue Bird’s motion for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis (Docket 2) is granted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2), the
institution having custody of Mr. Blue Bird shall, whenever the amount in
Mr. Blue Bird’s trust account exceeds $10, forward monthly payments that
equal 20 percent of the funds credited to the account the preceding month to the
Clerk of Court for the United States District Court, District of South Dakota,
until the $350 filing fee is paid in full.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)
& (ii) and 1915A(b)(1), count 1 of Mr. Blue Bird’s complaint (Docket 1) is
dismissed as frivolous and for failing to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted.
9
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Blue Bird shall amend the portions of
counts 2 and 3 of his complaint relating to his extradition and urinalysis claims
by March 31, 2016.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if Mr. Blue Bird fails to comply with
this order the court will, without further notice, dismiss the remaining claims in
the complaint with prejudice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Blue Bird’s motion requesting to add
additional defendants to his complaint (Docket 5) is denied unless he can show
with specificity good cause why additional defendants, beyond the eighteen he
has already identified, are necessary parties to his suit.
Dated March 9, 2016.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Jeffrey L. Viken
JEFFREY L. VIKEN
CHIEF JUDGE
10
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?