Boje v. Remington
Filing
9
DECISION AND ORDER signed by Judge Pamela Pepper on 3/15/2016 GRANTING 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis, SCREENING Plaintiff's Complaint, an Setting the deadline of 4/18/16 for the Plaintiff to file an amended complaint. (cc: all counsel; by US Mail to Plaintiff and Warden, New Lisbon CI) (pwm)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
______________________________________________________________________________
RYAN BOJE,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No. 15-cv-1114-pp
TAMARA REMINGTON,
Defendant.
______________________________________________________________________________
DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO
PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS (DKT. NO. 2), SCREENING PLAINTIFF’S
COMPLAINT, AND SETTING A DEADLINE OF MONDAY, APRIL 18, 2016,
FOR PLAINTIFF TO FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT
______________________________________________________________________________
The plaintiff, a state prisoner who is representing himself, filed a
complaint alleging that defendant Remington violated his civil rights by
recording a tape recording that someone else had made. Dkt. No. 1. This order
resolves the plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and
screens the plaintiff’s complaint.
I.
IN FORMA PAUPERIS STATUS
The Prison Litigation Reform Act applies to this action because the
plaintiff was incarcerated when he filed his complaint. 28 U.S.C. §1915. The
law allows a court to give an incarcerated plaintiff the ability to proceed with
his lawsuit without pre-paying the civil case-filing fee, as long as he meets
certain conditions. One of those conditions is a requirement that the plaintiff
pay an initial partial filing fee. 28 U.S.C. §1915(b). Once the plaintiff pays the
1
initial partial filing fee, the court may allow the plaintiff to pay the balance of
the $350 filing fee over time, through deductions from his prisoner account. Id.
On November 4, 2015, the court issued an order finding that the plaintiff
lacked the funds to pay an initial partial filing fee, and waiving that fee. Dkt.
No. . 7; 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(4). The court also gave the plaintiff an opportunity
to voluntarily dismiss the case, to avoid incurring a “strike” for filing a frivolous
or unfounded lawsuit. Id. The plaintiff has not voluntarily dismissed the
comlaint, so the court will grant the plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in
forma pauperis, and will allow the plaintiff to pay the balance of the $350.00
filing fee over time from his prisoner account, as described at the end of this
order.
II.
SCREENING OF PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED COMPLAINT
A.
Standard for Screening Complaints
The Prison Litigation Reform Act requires federal courts to screen
complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity or
officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court
may dismiss an action or portion thereof if the claims alleged are “frivolous or
malicious,” fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seek
monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B).
To state a claim under the federal notice pleading system, plaintiffs must
provide a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that [he] is entitled
to relief[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). The complaint need not plead specific facts,
2
and need only provide “fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds
upon which it rests.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)
(quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). “Labels and conclusions” or
a “formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action” will not do.
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555).
The factual content of the complaint must allow the court to “draw the
reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”
Id. Indeed, allegations must “raise a right to relief above the speculative level.”
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. Factual allegations, when accepted as true, must
state a claim that is “plausible on its face.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.
Federal courts follow the two step analysis set forth in Twombly to
determine whether a complaint states a claim. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679. First, the
Court determines whether the plaintiff’s legal conclusions are supported by
factual allegations. Id. Legal conclusions not support by facts “are not entitled
to the assumption of truth.” Id. Second, the Court determines whether the wellpleaded factual allegations “plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.” Id.
The court gives pro se allegations, “however inartfully pleaded,” a liberal
construction. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (quoting Estelle v.
Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976)).
B.
Facts Alleged in the Proposed Complaint
On October 22, 2012, Nick Lehrke arrived at the Sheboygan Police
Department and played a tape recording that he made on a handheld recording
device. Dkt. No. 1 at 2. Defendant Tamara Remington, a detective with the
3
Sheboygan Police Department, “tape recorded [the] tape recording” and
disclosed its contents to the Sheboygan County District Attorney’s Office. Id. at
1, 3. The complaint provides no further information about the recording. Id.
The complaint does not explain, for example, who was recorded, why the
individuals were recorded, or how the recording relates to the plaintiff.
The plaintiff alleges that Remington acted outside the scope of her official
duties when she “authoriz[ed]…a tape recording made by the consent of one
party.” Id. at 1. According to the plaintiff, Remington violated several state
wiretapping laws, see Wis. Stats. §§968.28-968.33, as well as one federal
criminal law, 18 U.S.C. §2515. Id. at 1-2; Dkt. No. 5 at 2.
For relief, the plaintiff seeks: (1) “money judgment…in the amount of
$600.00 a day from the date of violation until the date of settlement;” (2)
“actual damages” in the amount of “$100.00 a day for each day of violation or
$1,000.00 whichever is less;” (3) punitive damages; and (4) reasonable costs
and fees. Dkt. No. 5 at 1-2.
C.
Legal Analysis of Alleged Facts
It appears that the plaintiff is attempting to bring a state wiretapping
claim in federal court. His complaint primarily focuses on a civil cause of action
under Wis. Stats. §§968.28-968.33, and asks for the monetary damages
available under those statutes. The complaint does not identify any federal
causes of action.
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. Owen Equipment &
Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365, 374 (1978). They have original
4
jurisdiction where the controversy exists between citizens of different states, or
where the controversy implicates a federal question. 28 U.S.C. §§13311332(a)(1). Federal courts also may assert supplemental jurisdiction where the
plaintiff’s state claims are so related to claims within the court’s original
jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy. 28 U.S.C.
§1367(a). In order for the plaintiff to pursue in federal court his causes of
action under Wis. Stats. §§ 968.28-968.33, he must clearly articulate a federal
cause of action that derives from a “common nucleus of operative facts” as his
state claims. See Groce v. Eli Lilly & Co., 193 F.3d 496 (7th Cir. 1999).
There does exist a federal wiretapping law—18 U.S.C. §2520(a)—but the
plaintiff does not mention it in his complaint. To bring a cause of action under
the federal wiretapping law, the plaintiff must allege that his own wire, oral or
electronic communications were intercepted, disclosed or intentionally used in
violation of the provisions of the law. Id. For a court to be able to determine
whether someone violated the federal wiretapping law, it must know (a) who did
the recording, (b) whose communications were recorded, (c) whether the
individuals knew they were being recorded, (d) whether they consented to being
recorded, and (e) whether there was a court order authorizing the recording.
The plaintiff also must show that the wiretapping violated some other federal
law. See Samuels v. District of Columtia, 770 F.2d 184, 193 (D.C. Cir. 1985).
The plaintiff’s complaint does not contain any of this information—he alleges
that the defendant taped a tape recording, and that the original tape recording
was made by “Nick Lehrke,” but he does not say what that tape recorded, who
5
it recorded, whether the individual or individuals being recorded knew that
they were being recorded or gave their consent, etc.
The court also has considered whether the plaintiff’s allegations implicate
a possible civil rights claim under 42 U.S.C. §1983. (The court notes that at the
top of his hand-written complaint, the plaintiff wrote, “Civil Rights Action.” Dkt.
No. 1 at 1.) Section 1983 creates a cause of action against a person who
violates someone’s civil rights while acting under color of law. Buchanan-Moore
v. County of Milwaukee, 570 F.3d 824, 827 (7th Cir. 2009) (citing Kramer v.
Village of North Fond du Lac, 384 F.3d 856, 861 (7th Cir. 2004). The plaintiff’s
complaint does not allege that the defendant violated any provision of the U.S.
Constitution or any federal statute. While the complaint alleges that the
defendant “is or may have been employed by the Sheboygan County police
department,” Dkt. No. 1 at 1, and thus the court can conclude that perhaps
the defendant was a state actor, he has made no allegations that she violated
any federal statute or any provision of the Constitution.
The plaintiff cannot bring a single state claim, standing alone, in federal
court. His complaint does not state a federal claim upon which relief can be
granted. Thus, the court will not allow the plaintiff to proceed on the complaint
in its current form. The court will give the plaintiff an opportunity to file an
amended complaint on or before April 18, 2016, clearly identifying his causes
of action and the facts that support his allegations. If the court does not receive
an amended complaint by that date, the court will dismiss the plaintiff’s case
without further notice or hearing.
6
The court also notes that the plaintiff did not use this court’s standard
pro se complaint form. Under Civil Local Rule 9(b), “[p]risoners appearing pro
se who commence an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for deprivations of federal
rights by persons acting under color of state law must file the complaint with
the Clerk of Court using the form available from the Court.” The court is
attaching a copy of the complaint form and the information packet for pro se
prisoners, for the plaintiff’s review. The court advises the plaintiff that if he files
an amended complaint, the amended complaint must be on the enclosed form,
must contain the docket number assigned to this case and must be labeled
“Amended Complaint.” The amended complaint will supersede the original
complaint, and must be complete in itself without reference to the original
complaint. See Duda v. Bd. of Educ. of Franklin Park Pub. Sch. Dist. No. 84,
133 F.3d 1054, 1056-57 (7th Cir. 1998). The “prior pleading is in effect
withdrawn as to all matters not restated in the amended pleading[.]” Id. at
1057 (citation omitted).
III.
CONCLUSION
The court GRANTS the plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis. Dkt. No. 2. The court ORDERS the Secretary of the Wisconsin
Department of Corrections or his designee to collect from the plaintiff's prison
trust account the $350.00 balance of the filing fee by collecting monthly
payments from the plaintiff's prison trust account in an amount equal to 20%
of the preceding month's income credited to the prisoner's trust account and
forwarding payments to the Clerk of Court each time the amount in the
7
account exceeds $10 in accordance with 28 U.S.C. §1915(b)(2). The Secretary
shall clearly identify the payments by the case name and number.
The court further ORDERS that the plaintiff shall submit all
correspondence and legal material to:
Office of the Clerk
United States District Court
Eastern District of Wisconsin
362 United States Courthouse
517 E. Wisconsin Avenue
Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53202
PLEASE DO NOT MAIL ANYTHING DIRECTLY TO THE COURT’S
CHAMBERS. It will only delay the processing of the matter.
The court will send a copy of this order to the warden of New Lisbon
Correctional Institution.
Dated in Milwaukee, Wisconsin this 15th day of March, 2016.
8
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?