United States District Court, D. Kansas
GARLAND E. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
K.
Gary Sebelius U.S. Magistrate Judge
Plaintiff
Garland E. Williams, proceeding pro se and in
forma pauperis, has filed the above-captioned action
against Defendants the United States of America, Senior U.S.
District Judge Ivan L. R. Lemelle, and Clerk of the Court for
the Eastern District of Louisiana William W. Blevins. For the
reasons stated below, the magistrate judge recommends the
district judge dismiss this action because plaintiff's
complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted and because plaintiff is seeking monetary relief from
defendants who are immune from such relief.
When a
plaintiff proceeds in forma pauperis, the court may
review the complaint under 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2). That section
authorizes the court to dismiss the case if the court
determines that the action “(i) is frivolous or
malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be
granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant
who is immune from such relief.”[1] The purpose of
the § 1915(e) is to “discourage the filing of, and
waste of judicial and private resources upon, baseless
lawsuits that paying litigants generally do not initiate
because of the costs of bringing suit and because of the
threat of sanctions for bringing vexatious suits under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11.”[2]
Fed. R.
Civ. P. 8(a) requires “a short and plain statement of
the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to
relief.”[3] When a complaint is so lengthy that it
becomes confusing, or is confusing in general, it does not
comply with Rule 8 and becomes subject to
dismissal.[4] The court uses the Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6)
motion-to-dismiss standard to determine whether dismissal
under Section 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is appropriate.[5] The court
liberally construes pro se parties' pleadings
and will accept as true all well-pleaded facts, drawing all
reasonable inferences in plaintiff's favor.[6] However,
plaintiff still bears the burden of alleging sufficient facts
upon which a recognized legal claim could be based. The court
cannot assume the responsibility of serving as
plaintiff's attorney in constructing arguments or
scouring the record for a possible cause of
action.[7] The plaintiff “must allege
sufficient facts to state a claim which is plausible- rather
than merely conceivable-on its face.”[8] Dismissal is
appropriate when a plaintiff cannot prevail on the facts
alleged, and it would be futile to give plaintiff an
opportunity to amend.[9]
Plaintiff's
29-page complaint is difficult to understand. The complaint
cites numerous federal statutes, provisions of the U.S.
Constitution, various judicial opinions ranging from a
dissenting opinion in Plessy v. Ferguson,
[10]
to the 1971 Second Circuit opinion Trans World
Airlines, Inc. v. Hughes, [11] generally references a
deprivation of civil liberties, inaction by a
“Juridicial” officer (presumably a judicial
officer), and obstruction of justice. However, it is unclear
what claims plaintiff is attempting to assert or the factual
basis giving rise to those claims. For example, one of the
opening paragraphs providing a statement of plaintiff's
claim asserts that:
The circumstantive events recognize pleading omission acts by
multiple assigned Precedents; so named United States
Government instrumentality-agents. Whom behaviors engaged in
egregious, impartial fiduciary duty obligations, and contrary
to law acts notwithstanding Petitioner's prima facie
petition allegations. A viable pending show cause-in-effect
accountability recanting of liable Administrative precedence
unlawful omissions; is listed as follow . . .[12]
The
entire complaint is written in a similar style.
The
majority of legal authority cited by plaintiff does not
create a private right of action, and even recognized legal
claims-such as those arising under 42 U.S.C. § 1983-are
not supported by sufficient facts to state a claim for
relief. Moreover, the vast majority of discernable factual
allegations concern alleged actions taken by Judge Lemelle
and the clerk's office in the case plaintiff filed in the
Eastern District of Louisiana, Williams v. Department of
Children and Family Services of the State of Louisiana,
et al., 16-15866-ILRL-JCW. To that end,
plaintiff's claims against these individuals also appear
to be barred by judicial immunity.[13] The United States is also
likely immune from this suit;[14] however, it is wholly unclear
from the complaint what claims plaintiff is attempting to
assert against the United States or what alleged acts give
rise to these claims.
For
these reasons, the magistrate judge recommends the district
judge dismiss this action because plaintiff's complaint
fails to state a claim for which relief may be granted and
because plaintiff is seeking monetary relief from defendants
who are immune from such relief. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§
636(b)(1) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72, plaintiff shall have fourteen
(14) days after service of a copy of this Report and
Recommendation to file any written objections. A party must
file any objections within the fourteen-day period if that
party wants to have appellate review of the proposed findings
of fact, conclusions of law, or recommended disposition. If
no objections are timely filed, no appellate review will be
allowed by any court.
---------
Notes:
[1] 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)-(iii).
[2]
Trujillo v. Williams, 465
F.3d 1210, 1216 (10th Cir. 2006) (quoting Neitzke v.
Williams, 490 U.S. ...