Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Clervrain v. Revell

United States District Court, D. Kansas

December 14, 2018

SARA M. REVELL, Defendant.



         This matter is before the Court on a number of pending motions.

         Motion for Consideration and Consolidate (ECF No. 2)

         Plaintiff asks that the Court consolidate this case (No. 18-3166) with another of his cases, No. 18-3041. While Plaintiff's filings are far from clear, he seems to be arguing that both cases involve the same issues. He further seems to assert that the document designated as a Complaint in this case (the “document”; ECF No. 1) should have been filed as an Amended Complaint in 18-3041.

         A review of the document at issue shows Plaintiff first wrote No. 18-3041 on the line for case number, then crossed it out and wrote 17-3194 in two different places. No. 17-3194 is another case filed by Plaintiff in this Court which involves a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) dispute with the Bureau of Prisons. The document was received by the Court on July 17, 2018, having been postmarked July 10, 2018. No. 18-3041 had been dismissed by the Court on June 28, 2019. By the time the clerk received the document on July 17, 2018, Plaintiff had already filed a Notice of Appeal with the Tenth Circuit in 18-3041. Furthermore, the document was not designated as an amended complaint, named a single defendant who was not named in 18-3041, and made numerous seemingly new claims in its 227 pages. As the document clearly did not pertain to the FOIA case, as 18-3041 had already been dismissed when the document was received by the Court, as the document named a different defendant than 18-3041 and raised a multiplicity of apparently new claims, the Clerk filed it as a new case.

         Even if Plaintiff had properly identified the document and it had been filed in 18-3041, it was untimely. The Court issued a notice of deficiency on February 23, 2018, requiring Plaintiff to submit a complaint on the court-approved form by March 26, 2018. Plaintiff had failed to comply by May 16, 2018, so the Court entered an order to show cause giving him until June 5, 2018, to comply. Plaintiff filed a motion for extension of time on May 31, 2018, giving no indication of when he proposed to comply with the Court's order. When Plaintiff had failed to comply by June 28, 2018, the Court dismissed the case. The document at issue was postmarked July 10, 2018, more than a month after the last deadline and twelve (12) days after the case had been dismissed.

         Because No. 18-3041 has been decided and is on appeal, Plaintiff's motion to consolidate it with this case is denied.

         Motion and Notice on Law Library Access (ECF No. 3)

         Plaintiff asks the Court to order the BOP to allow him to use a computer with internet access so he can do research for this case and all of his pending cases across the country. The right to access to courts neither requires “unlimited access to a law library” nor allows inmates “the right to select the method by which access will be provided.” Penrod v. Zavaras, 94 F.3d 1399, 1403 (10th Cir. 1996) (citations omitted). His “ample filings [in this Court] belie any argument that he is being denied meaningful access to the courts.” Rudnick v. Raemisch, 731 Fed.Appx. 753, 755 (10th Cir. 2018). Moreover, Plaintiff has not shown that “the denial of legal resources hindered [his] efforts to pursue a nonfrivolous claim, ” id., largely because he has not filed a Complaint that coherently describes the claims he seeks to pursue. See id., quoting Penrod, 94 F.3d at 1403. Plaintiff's motion is denied.

         Motion for Notice and Circumstances (ECF No. 4)

         In this filing, Plaintiff seems to be requesting “to delay the proceeding of the Court[s]” because the private prison where he was confined had placed him on transfer status on the basis of false incident reports so he would not have access to a law library. The Court grants an extension until January 28, 2019, in response to ECF No. 17. This motion is denied. Motion for Emergency and Circumstances (ECF No. 6)

         This motion appears to be a preemptive one. Based on the fact that prison officials packed his property, Plaintiff believes he may be transferred, possibly resulting in restrictions on access to stamps and a computer and the imposition of “forced labor.” He asks the Court to intervene with the BOP to prevent any possible restrictions on stamps or legal materials, to order Plaintiff have access to a computer, and to prevent the BOP from imposing “forced labor” on Plaintiff. If and when Plaintiff suffers an actual injury, he should file a renewed motion. This motion is denied.

         Motion for Appeal Courts Panel and Intervention for Controversial Allegations (ECF No. 10)

         In this motion, Plaintiff states he is moving pursuant to Rule 24(b) (Permissive Intervention), Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 8 (Stay or Injunction Pending Appeal), and Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 15 (Review or Enforcement of an Agency Order - How Obtained; Intervention). He requests the “issuance of jurisdiction matters” with the Tenth, Sixth, Eighth, and Seventh Circuits.

         Plaintiff seems to be asking for all of the listed courts to work together to resolve his claims. This Court has no authority to grant this request.

         This motion is denied.

         Motion for Permissible Intervention Against Department of Corrections Controversial Allegations (ECF No. 11)

         This motion closely resembles ECF No. 10, except that Plaintiff lists the District Courts of Indiana, Missouri, Colorado, Wisconsin, Minnesota, South Dakota, Michigan, and North Dakota. He states, “the purpose of this motion is to file a complaint against each of the Department of Correction of each state, all the prisons, their contractors, partners, vendors and subcontractors, and employees.” Plaintiff further wants each of these “parties” to provide him with Rule 26 disclosures, and he asks this Court to send a copy of the motion to the courts of each listed state. Finally, Plaintiff states, “This Court should also assign a new case against the Kansas Department of Corrections and Its Directors in the court where appropriate evidence is . . . and the courts should file the cases under ‘John Doe' et al. until further ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.