Johnson v. Springfield Prison

• Court: District Court, D. South Dakota
• Decided: May 17, 2019
• Docket: 4:19-cv-04002
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT > “DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA SOUTHERNDIVISION, 9

CHARLESRAY JOHNSON, 4:19-CV-04002-RAL □□□ Plaintif, □ ye FORDER DISMISSING CASE SPRINGFIELD PRISON, - (MIKE DURFEE] © - es STATE PRISON); oo os □ Defendant. ep, . ee □

. OnJ anuary 8, 2019, Charles R. Johnson filed a pro se action against the “Springfield Prison (Mike Durfee State Prison),” listing the address of the Mike Durfee State Prison in Springfield, □

South Dakota. Doe. 1. Johnson's stated grounds for filing the case in Federal Court include “conspiracy to deprive of civil rights,” “medical malpractice,” and “intentional infliction of emotional distress.” Id . Johnson also filed a Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis, Doe. 2, indicating — that he is indigent. J ohnson was not a prisoner at the time he filed the Motion. See Docs. 1; 2, 4. There isa two-step screening process with in forma pauperis litigants. Martin-Ti rigona v. Stewart, □□

691 F.2d 856, 857 (8th Cir. 1982): see also Key v Does, 217 F. Supp. 3d 1006, 1006 (E.D. Ark. 2016). First, district courts must determine whether a plaintiff is financially cligible to proceed in □

. forma pauperis under.28 USS.C. § 1915(a). Id. Second, district courts are to determine whether the

complaint should be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Id □ □

This Court may authorize the commencement of suit without ptepayinent of fees when an applicant files an affidavit stating he is unable to pay the costs of the lawsuit. 18 U.S.C. § 1915.

Determining whether an applicant is sufficiently impoverished to qualify to proceed in forma pauperis under $1915 is committed to the court's discretion. Cross v. Gen. Motors Corp.. 721 F.2d 1157 (8th Cir. 1983). "In forma pauperis status does not require a litigant to demonstrate. □ absolute destitution.” Lee v. ‘MeDonala's Corp.. 231 F.3d 456 (8th Cir. 2000). Considering the information in the financial affidavit, this. Court finds that J ohiason has made the requisite financial showing to proceed in forma pauperis. . a . . □□ But the inquiry does not end there. Under § 1915 , the court rhust review the claims in the complaint to determine if they are (1) frivolous or malicious; (2) fail to state.a claim on which relief may be eranted; or (3) seek monetary relief against a defendant who has immunity. See 28US.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The Supreme. Court of the United States has also explained that. the screening procedure of § 1915(e)! "accords judges not only the authority to dismiss a claim based an indisputably meritless legal theory, but also the unusual power to pierce the veil of the

complaint's factual allegations ind dismiss those claims whose. factual contentions are clearly baseless." Denton v. Hernandee, 504 U.S. 25, 32 (1992). "{Ajn in forma pauperis complaint may not be dismissed, however, simply because the finds the plaintiffs allegations unlikely." Id. at 33, Pro se complaints like the one in this case are entitled to a liberal construction. Atkinson V. Bohn, 91 F.3d 1127, 1129 (8th Cir. 1996) □□□□ curiam). Although pro se complaints are to be construed liberally, "they must still allege facts □

sufficient to support the claims advanced." Stone v. Harry. 364 F.3d 912, 914 (8th Cit. 2004). The

i opinion, the Supreme Court referred to 28 US.C.§ 1915(@. The in forma pauperis statute his since been revised and the former section (d) is now section (e). .

is not required to supply additional facts for a pro se plaintiff, nor construct a legal theory that assumes facts which have not been pleaded. Id. . Johnson does not identify the grounds for this Court’s jurisdiction. See Doc. 1. The Court construes Tohnson’s complaint as oné brought under 42 USC. § 1983. “Section 1983 creates a

species of tort liability for the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the

Constitution.” Manuel v. City of Joliet, 137 S.Ct. 911, 916 (2017) (internal citation omitted). “The essential elements ofa constitutional claim under § 1983 are (1) that the defendant acted under the

. color of state law, and (2) that the alleged wrongful conduct deprived the plaintiff of a . -constitutionally protected federal right” LL. Nelson Enters., Ine. v. Cty. of St Louis, 773 F.3d | 799, 805 (8th Cir. 2012) (citing Schmidt v. City of Bella Villa, 557 F.3d 564, 571 (8th Cir. 2009). □ Johnson claims the Springfield Prison failed to order: enough chemical to sterilize dental □ □ tools. Doc. 1. As a result, Johnson complains that he developed a severe bacterial infection following a surgery. I at2. . . Under 42 US.C. § 1983 only “persons” may be sued for constitutional violations. A state and its agencies sued for monetary relief are not “persons” for purposes of § 1983. Willy. Michigan □ Dept of State Police, 49] U.S. 58, 64 & 70 (1989). The Mike Durfee State Prison in Springfield,

_ South. Dakota is an arm of the State of South Dakota, and as such, is not subject to suit under § 1983. See SDCL § 1-15 4 2. Thus, J ohnson’s complaint fails to state a claim on which relief can be granted and must be dismissed. Accordingly. it is . ORDERED that Johnson’s Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 2) is granted. It is further . oe □ ORDERED that Johnson’s case is dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim. □□ □ Itis further . .

ORDERED that Johnson’s Motion to Electronically File Documents (Doc. 6) is denied. DATED May (72019. BY THE COURT:

ROBERTO A. Gag UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE