Nygaard v. Taylor

D. South Dakota

Nygaard v. Taylor

DecidedMay 15, 2020

Docket3:19-cv-03016

StatusUnknown

This text of Nygaard v. Taylor (Nygaard v. Taylor) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. South Dakota primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Nygaard v. Taylor, (D.S.D. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA CENTRAL DIVISION

AARIN NYGAARD & TERRANCE STANLEY, 3:19-CV-03016-RAL Plaintiffs, vs. ORDER DIRECTING SERVICE TRICIA TAYLOR, TED TAYLOR, JR., JESSICA DUCHENEAUX, ED DUCHENEAUX, CHEYENNE RIVER SIOUX TRIBAL COURT, BRENDA CLAYMORE, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS CHIEF JUDGE; CHEYENNE RIVER SIOUX TRIBAL COURT OF APPEALS; FRANK POMMERSHEIM, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS CHIEF JUSTICE; THE SOUTH DAKOTA DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, TODD WALDO, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS SOCIAL WORKER; AND JENNY FARLEE, IN HER OFFICAL CAPACITY AS SOCIAL WORKER; Defendants.

Petitioners have filed this action for a writ of habeas corpus under 25 U.S.C. § 1303. Petitioners do not appear to be “prisoners” as that term is defined in 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, so their petition is not subject to screening under that statute. See Olivas v. Nevada ex rel. Dep’t of Corrs., 856 F.3d 1281, 1282 (9th Cir. 2017) (per curiam) (holding that screening under 1915A applies only to claims brought by individuals incarcerated at the time they file their complaints); Kane v. Lancaster Cty. Dep’t of Corrs., 960 F. Supp. 219, 221 (D. Neb. 1997) (“Since Kane was not a prisoner when he sued, this court is not authorized to engage in the screening contemplated by 28 U.S.C. 1915A(a) & (b).”). The record does not contain proof of service on the Respondents and no summons have been issued. Through staff, this Court confirmed that the Defendants have not

been served and learned that the attorneys who brought this case wish to add a second plaintiff and file an amended Petition. Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED that leave is granted for filing of an amended petition. It is further ORDERED that the Clerk of Court and Petitioners’ attorneys are to arrange for issuance of summons and that the Petitioners’ attorneys arrange service on the Defendants of the amended petition and a copy of this Order. It is further ORDERED that, with no screening required of the amended petition, Respondents shall have the usual 21 days after service under Rule 12(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, unless the time is extended by agreement of the parties or order of this Coutt, to file a response to the amended petition.

DATED this 15 day of May, 2020. BY THE COURT: Gg — Seloas ld LANGE CHIEF JUDGE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA CENTRAL DIVISION

AARIN NYGAARD & TERRANCE STANLEY, 3:19-CV-03016-RAL Plaintiffs, vs. ORDER DIRECTING SERVICE TRICIA TAYLOR, TED TAYLOR, JR., JESSICA DUCHENEAUX, ED DUCHENEAUX, CHEYENNE RIVER SIOUX TRIBAL COURT, BRENDA CLAYMORE, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS CHIEF JUDGE; CHEYENNE RIVER SIOUX TRIBAL COURT OF APPEALS; FRANK POMMERSHEIM, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS CHIEF JUSTICE; THE SOUTH DAKOTA DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, TODD WALDO, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS SOCIAL WORKER; AND JENNY FARLEE, IN HER OFFICAL CAPACITY AS SOCIAL WORKER; Defendants.

Petitioners have filed this action for a writ of habeas corpus under 25 U.S.C. § 1303. Petitioners do not appear to be “prisoners” as that term is defined in 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, so their petition is not subject to screening under that statute. See Olivas v. Nevada ex rel. Dep’t of Corrs., 856 F.3d 1281, 1282 (9th Cir. 2017) (per curiam) (holding that screening under 1915A applies only to claims brought by individuals incarcerated at the time they file their complaints); Kane v. Lancaster Cty. Dep’t of Corrs., 960 F. Supp. 219, 221 (D. Neb. 1997) (“Since Kane was not a prisoner when he sued, this court is not authorized to engage in the screening contemplated by 28 U.S.C. 1915A(a) & (b).”). The record does not contain proof of service on the Respondents and no summons have been issued. Through staff, this Court confirmed that the Defendants have not

been served and learned that the attorneys who brought this case wish to add a second plaintiff and file an amended Petition. Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED that leave is granted for filing of an amended petition. It is further ORDERED that the Clerk of Court and Petitioners’ attorneys are to arrange for issuance of summons and that the Petitioners’ attorneys arrange service on the Defendants of the amended petition and a copy of this Order. It is further ORDERED that, with no screening required of the amended petition, Respondents shall have the usual 21 days after service under Rule 12(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, unless the time is extended by agreement of the parties or order of this Coutt, to file a response to the amended petition.

DATED this 15 day of May, 2020. BY THE COURT: Gg — Seloas ld LANGE CHIEF JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Nygaard v. Taylor, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nygaard-v-taylor-sdd-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack