Walker v. Yants et al

Filing 10

ORDER dismissing 1 Motion for Preliminary Injunction; denying as moot 3 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis; denying as moot 5 Motion for service; denying as moot 6 Motion for oral argument; denying as moot 7 Motion to Appoint Counsel; denying as moot 8 Motion. Signed by Chief Judge Jeffrey L. Viken on 4/14/17. (SB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA
WESTERN DIVISION
CLAYTON WALKER,

CIV. 17-5007-JLV

Plaintiff,
vs.
CPT. YANTS, PENNINGTON CO. JAIL,
HUGHES CO. JAIL, SHERIFF DEPT.,
STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA, PUBLIC
DEFENDERS OFFICE and UNKNOWN
NAMED AGENTS,

ORDER

Defendants.
On January 24, 2017, plaintiff Clayton Walker, pro se, filed a motion for
injunctive relief against defendants. (Docket 1). Mr. Walker moves for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis and provided the court his financial information.
(Docket 3).
Mr. Walker bases his request for relief on civil rights statutes, but he does
not explain how his civil rights have been violated. Construing his complaint
liberally, Mr. Walker alleges that his right to a speedy trial was violated. “[A]
speedy trial is guaranteed [to] the accused by the Sixth Amendment to the
Constitution . . . .” Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 515 (1972). Mr. Walker
alleges he signed a waiver of his rights and when he refused to sign another the
court went ahead with the trial. (Docket 1 at p. 2). This does not constitute a
violation of Mr. Walker’s constitutional rights. Mr. Walker alleges his rights
were violated because the state violated the state law concerning time allowed for
disposition of criminal cases. Id. (citing SDCL 23A-44-5.1). “ ‘[A] violation of
state law, without more, does not state a claim under the federal Constitution or

42 U.S.C. § 1983.’ ” Colbert v. Roling, 233 F. App’x 587, 589-90 (8th Cir. 2007)
(per curium) (quoting Collins v. Bellinghausen, 153 F.3d 591, 596 (8th Cir.
1998)).
Mr. Walker does not have standing to bring this case in federal court.
One essential aspect of the “Cases” or “Controversies” requirement of Article III of
the Constitution “is that any person invoking the power of a federal court must
demonstrate standing to do so.” Hollingsworth v. Perry, 133 S. Ct. 2652, 2661
(2013). “This requires the litigant to prove that he has suffered a concrete and
particularized injury . . . .” Id. (citing Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S.
555, 560–61 (1992)). “In other words, for a federal court to have authority
under the Constitution to settle a dispute, the party before it must seek a remedy
for a personal and tangible harm.” Id. Mr. Walker cannot prove he suffered
“personal” harm because, as he admits in his filings, he did not bring the
complaint on his own behalf. To the extent Mr. Walker alleges the practices set
out in his motion violated the rights of others, he lacks standing to bring such a
claim. See Hodak v. City of St. Peters, 535 F.3d 899, 904 (8th Cir. 2008) (“As a
general rule, a plaintiff may only assert his own injury in fact and cannot rest his
claim to relief on the legal rights or interests of third parties.”) (internal quotation
marks omitted).
The court noted the many cases Mr. Walker has filed in Walker v. Jackley,
et al., CIV. 16-5015 (Docket 12 at p. 4) (D.S.D. July 28, 2016) (“Mr. Walker’s
filing history in the Western Division demonstrates his sustained proclivity to file
suits without legal merit.”). The court finds the time has come where it must
limit Mr. Walker’s ability to file additional cases.
Accordingly, it is
2

ORDERED that Mr. Walker’s motion (Docket 1) is denied and the case is
dismissed without prejudice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the clerk of the court is instructed that
any future filings by Clayton Walker must first be approved by a district judge.
The district judge will review the pleading and determine whether the pleading
will be allowed.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Walker’s motion for leave to proceed in
forma pauperis (Docket 3) is denied at moot.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Walker’s motion for service (Docket 5)
is denied as moot.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Walker’s motion for oral argument
(Docket 6) is denied as moot.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Walker’s motion to appoint counsel
(Docket 7) is denied as moot.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Walker’s motion (Docket 8) is denied
as moot.
Dated April 14, 2017.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Jeffrey L. Viken
JEFFREY L. VIKEN
CHIEF JUDGE

3