United States District Court, D. Kansas
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
CROW U.S. SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE
matter is a civil rights action filed against several
defendants including federal officials and agencies.
Plaintiff, an Ohio prisoner, proceeds pro se and seeks leave
to proceed in forma pauperis.
commenced this action on July 20, 2017, against two United
States attorneys, a federal judge, a federal court, three
agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the FBI,
the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the director of the
CIA, the United States Marshals Service, a private attorney,
and two correctional officers. He claims the defendant judge
defamed him in a July 2017 hearing and misstated facts in
order to keep him confined. He also claims the attorneys and
judge caused him to be placed in a mental hospital so that he
would be forced from his home. Finally, he claims that the
defendant corrections officers prepared frivolous reports
against him, and that they took this action at the request of
the government and the FBI. He seeks damages, release from
confinement, and the dismissal of criminal charges against
August 8, 2017, the Court entered an order denying leave to
proceed in forma pauperis and directing plaintiff to submit
the full filing fee within thirty days. This was based upon
plaintiff's filing history in the federal courts and a
determination that he is subject to the provisions of 28
U.S.C. § 1915(g).
August 21, 2017, plaintiff filed a motion to vacate, stating
that he is not subject to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §
1915(g) because he is civilly committed. The Court granted
the motion to vacate on November 15, 2017. Accordingly,
plaintiff's objection to the initial partial filing fee
is sustained and no collection action will be ordered.
federal court must conduct a preliminary review of any case
in which a prisoner seeks relief against a governmental
entity or an officer or employee of such an entity.
See 28 U.S.C. §1915A(a). Following this review,
the court must dismiss any portion of the complaint that is
frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted, or seeks monetary damages from a
defendant who is immune from that relief. See 28
U.S.C. § 1915A(b).
screening, a court liberally construes pleadings filed by a
party proceeding pro se and applies “less stringent
standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.”
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007).
avoid a dismissal for failure to state a claim, a complaint
must set out factual allegations that “raise a right to
relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). The court
accepts the well-pleaded allegations in the complaint as true
and construes them in the light most favorable to the
plaintiff. Id. However, “when the allegations
in a complaint, however true, could not raise a [plausible]
claim of entitlement to relief, ” the matter should be
dismissed. Id. at 558. A court need not accept
“[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of
action supported by mere conclusory statements.”
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Rather,
“to state a claim in federal court, a complaint must
explain what each defendant did to [the pro se plaintiff];
when the defendant did it; how the defendant's action
harmed [the plaintiff]; and what specific legal right the
plaintiff believes the defendant violated.” Nasious
v. Two Unknown B.I.C.E. Agents, 492 F.3d 1158, 1163
(10th Cir. 2007).
Tenth Circuit has observed that the U.S. Supreme Court's
decisions in Twombley and Erickson set out
a new standard of review for dismissals under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) dismissals. See Key v.
Bemis, 500 F.3d 1214, 1218 (10th Cir. 2007)(citations
omitted). Following those decisions, courts “look to
the specific allegations in the complaint to determine
whether they plausibly support a legal claim for
relief.” Kay, 500 F.3d at 1218 (quotation
marks and internal citations omitted). A plaintiff
“must nudge his claims across the line from conceivable
to plausible.” Smith v. United States, 561
F.3d 1090, 1098 (10th Cir. 2009). In this context,
“plausible” refers “to the scope of the
allegations in a complaint: if they are so general that they
encompass a wide swath of conduct much of it innocent,
” then the plaintiff has not “nudged [the] claims
across the line from conceivable to plausible.”
Robbins v. Oklahoma, 519 F.3d 1242, 1247 (citing
Twombly at 1974).
Court has reviewed the complaint and finds no basis to allow
this matter to proceed. First, it does not appear that venue
is proper in the District of Kansas. Whether venue is proper
in a federal district is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1391,
which provides that a civil action may be brought in:
(1) a judicial district in which any defendant resides, if
all defendants are residents of the State in which the
district is located;
(2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the
events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a
substantial part of the property that is the ...