Hines v. Kaemingk
| Decision Date | 30 January 2020 |
| Docket Number | 4:19-CV-04108-LLP |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of South Dakota |
| Parties | NICHOLAS STEWART HINES, Plaintiff, v. DENNIS KAEMINGK, SECRETARY OF CORRECTIONS; OFFICIAL CAPACITY; INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY; DARIN YOUNG, WARDEN, SOUTH DAKOTA STATE PENITENTIARY; OFFICIAL CAPACITY; INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY; CODY HANSON, UNIT/CASE MANAGER, SDSP; OFFICIAL CAPACITY; INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY; MELISSA MATURAN, ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDY COORDINATOR, SDSP; OFFICIAL CAPACITY; INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY; JODY JOHNSON, YANKTON COUNTY CLERK OF COURTS; IN BOTH OFFICIAL AND INDIVIDUAL CAPACITIES; BRANDON LABRIE, UNIT/CASE MANAGER & UNIT/COORDINATOR SDSP; IN BOTH OFFICIAL AND INDIVIDUAL CAPACITIES; JANE OR JOHN DOE, IN BOTH INDIVIAUL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITIES; AND YANKTON COUNTY, IN BOTH INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITIES; Defendants. |
1915A SCREENING AND ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT
Plaintiff, Nicholas Stewart Hines, filed a pro se civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Docs. 1 and 6. This Court granted Hines leave to proceed in forma pauperis and he paid his initial partial filing fee. Doc. 9. Hines has filed numerous letters with this Court. Docs. 10, 12, 17. He moves to appoint legal counsel and moves for a continuance. Docs. 3 and 13.
Hines's complaint alleges multiple Constitutional violations, many of them having to do with his court ordered financial obligation. See Doc. 1. Hines filed a supplement to his complaint. Doc. 6. His judgment of conviction notes that he plead guilty to homicide as manslaughter in the first degree. Id. at 2, 4. Hines provides a copy of his sentence which states, "[t]he Defendant shall pay restitution through the Yankton County Clerk of Courts pursuant to the restitution sheet on file." Id. at 5. He claims this Court has supplemental jurisdiction to assess his state claims. Doc. 1 at 10. Throughout his complaint he raises violations of the First, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments. See id.
Broadly, Hines alleges these violations have been occurring since June 7, 2012, and states Id. at 12-13. Hines asserts that his claims "are absolutely not intended, in any way, to directly challenge the validity of his criminal conviction or the validity of his financial obligations in CR 11-0216." Id. at 14.
Hines claims he was shot in the head during an incident related to his underlying criminal offense. Id. at 33. He alleges his pleas for medical care were ignored while he was in the Yankton County Jail. Id. Hines suffered damage to his mouth and it affected his ability to eat. Id. Hines believes the lack of medical care was used to manipulate his criminal proceedings, and that his attorney told him " 'not to piss off the judge or you will appear selfish[.]' " Id. at 34. Hines plead guilty and claims he was granted permission to have surgery after many grievances and encounters with health services. Id. at 34.
He asserts that his Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment is being violating because the defendants have been subjecting him to excessive fines for six years. Id. at 16. Hines believes that the defendants "intentionally altered and changed" his state court sentence and asserts this violation "was done by the Defendants without Plaintiff having benefit of due process, legal assistance or equal protection of the law and contrary to Plaintiff's rights to petition for redress or grievances, freedom of speech and freedom from punishment which is cruel and unusual," Id. He claims that defendant, Cody Hanson has changed his financial court-ordered obligations to show that he owes $10 million. Id. at 20. Further Hines alleges that the financial account, that defendant Kathy Washington provided was falsely presented. Id. at 18. Hines claims he brought this to the attention of Dennis Kaemingk and his response was "Central records has not made any changes to your sentence." Id. at 22. Hines believes an unknown Yankton county official called Hanson and told him to change the financial obligations relating to Hines's criminal case. Id. at 23.
Hines believes his First Amendment right to access the courts is being violated for the deficient and inadequate legal assistance. Id. Hines alleges that there are no self-help books available and no one legally trained is available to him. Id. Hines believes that the tablets, which have access to LexisNexis are in violation of his right because it cannot answer his questions, such as, what information should be searched for and how to pursue certain legal actions. Id. Hines claims that his ''time, money and efforts" have been burdened and hindered due to these alleged violations. Id. at 15. Hines alleges his Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments rights of due process and equal protection are being violated because defendants "by their actions and inactions, have in fact and actuality affected Plaintiff in his genuine and earnest pursuit of legal matters and attempted resolution thereof[.]" Id.
Hines claims his First, Sixth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights have been violated by the defendants "actions and inactions" and believes the legal assistance is inadequate. Id. Hines claims these actions have been taken to hinder him. Id. Hines lists examples of the defendants "actions and inactions[.]" Id. at 16-19. He mentions his previous habeas petition, as well as his direct appeal. Id. at 24. Again, Hines claims that "[t]his entire action and all claims within are once again, not to directly challenge the plaintiff's judgment of conviction, but his claims are to rectify the damages and prejudices that violate the plaintiff's civil rights, in the knowing concealment of his case material from his conviction." Id. at 28. He believes that the were "highly probative" and "exculpatory in nature[.]" Id. at 30-31.
Hines claims Kaemingk, refuses to review his grievances about legal assistance. Id. at 35. He believes he cannot fully exhaust his administrative remedies before another legal issue arises: Id. at 35. Hines lists prison policies he believes that affect his ability to litigate his case. Id. Hines requests injunctive relief, compensatory damages, and punitive damages. Id. at 36-41.
A court when screening under § 1915A must assume as true all facts well pleaded in the complaint. Estate of Rosenberg v. Crandell, 56 F.3d 35, 36 (8th Cir. 1995). Civil rights and pro se complaints must be liberally construed. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007); Bediako v. Stein Mart, Inc., 354 F.3d 835, 839 (8th Cir. 2004). Even with this construction, "a pro se complaint must contain specific facts supporting its conclusions." Martin v. Sargent, 780 F.2d 1334, 1337 (8th Cir. 1985); see also Ellis v. City of Minneapolis, 518 F. App'x 502, 504 (8th Cir.2013). Civil rights complaints cannot be merely conclusory. Davis v. Hall, 992 F.2d 151, 152 (8th Cir. 1993); Parker v. Porter, 221 F. App'x 481, 482 (8th Cir. 2007).
A complaint "does not need detailed factual allegations . . . [but] requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). If a complaint does not contain these bare essentials, dismissal is appropriate. Beavers v. Lockhart, 755 F.2d 657, 663 (8th Cir. 1985). Twombly requires that a complaint's factual allegations must be "enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level on the assumption that all the allegations in the complaint are true." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555; see also Abdullah v. Minnesota, 261 F. App'x 926, 927 (8th Cir. 2008) (). Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the court must screen prisoner complaints and dismiss them if they are "(1) frivolous, malicious, or fail[] to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (2) seek[] monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief." 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).
Hines brings his complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging multiple Constitutional violations and state law claims. Doc. 1 at 3, 10. Most of Hines's alleged constitutional violations surround his financial obligations from his state law criminal conviction. See Doc. 1. In Heck v. Humphrey, the United States Supreme Court held that:
In order to recover damages for allegedly unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment, or for other harm caused by action whose unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence invalid, a § 1983 plaintiff must prove that the conviction or sentence has been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such determination, or called into question by a federal court's issuance of a writ of habeas corpus, 28 U.S.C. § 2254,
512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994). "Alternatively, if his suit is not explicitly directed at an unlawful conviction or sentence, the prisoner must establish that the suit does not 'necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or sentence.' " Dolney v. Lahammer, 70 F. Supp. 2d 1038, 1040 (D.S.D. 1999) (quoting Heck, 512 U.S. at 486.).
Hines is adamant that his claims are not intended to challenge the validity of his criminal conviction or his financial obligations. Doc. 1 at 14, 28. This Court is unaware of the amount of his financial...
To continue reading
Request your trial