Jacobs v. Kan. Highway Patrolman Div., CASE NO. 10-3145-SAC

• Decision Date: 15 December 2010
• Docket Number: CASE NO. 10-3145-SAC
• Parties: NICHOLAS MONTGOMERY JACOBS, Plaintiff, v. KANSAS HIGHWAY PATROLMAN DIVISION,Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Kansas

NICHOLAS MONTGOMERY JACOBS, Plaintiff,
v.
KANSAS HIGHWAY PATROLMAN DIVISION, Defendant.

CASE NO. 10-3145-SAC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

Date: December 15, 2010

ORDER

This civil rights complaint, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, was filed by plaintiff while he was in the custody of the Kansas Department of Corrections (KDOC). Mr. Jacobs claims he was shot by an unknown law enforcement officer for no reason while he apparently was attempting to elude capture or arrest. He seeks millions of dollars in money damages for "emotional and mental distress" and pain as a result of the shooting. He also alleges that he is "lamed", cannot do what he used to with his body, and has limited use of his back.

In its initial screening order, the court required Mr. Jacobs to submit a certified statement of his inmate account for the appropriate time period as required by statute to support his motion to proceed without prepayment of fees. Mr. Jacobs has responded that he is no longer an inmate, and has no record of his prison account. He further alleges that he is relying solely on Social Security, is unable to work, and has no funds to pay the

Page 2

filing fee. The court finds that plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis shall be granted based upon the financial information currently before the court.

The complaint submitted in forma pauperis in this case was properly screened by the court, and the court found and informed plaintiff of several deficiencies. Because plaintiff is proceeding pro se the court must construe his pleadings liberally and hold them to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007); Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10^th Cir. 1991). However, "[t]he broad reading of the plaintiff's Complaint does not relieve [him] of the burden of alleging sufficient facts on which a recognized legal claim could be based." Hall, 935 F.2d at 1110. The court "will not supply additional factual allegations to round out a plaintiff's complaint or construct a legal theory on a plaintiff's behalf." Whitney v. New Mexico, 113 F.3d 1170, 1173-74 (10^th Cir. 1997).

Even though plaintiff plainly stated in his complaint that he would hire an attorney in October to help him discover the allegedly culpable individual's name, he now alleges that he does not "know how to retain a lawyer for this case." Mr. Jacobs does not allege any facts or provide any copies of letters showing that he has contacted even a single attorney or legal services organization and requested representation in this case. He asserts that it is "the courts job to let people with no funds" file civil suits. Mr. Jacobs was not prevented from filing this lawsuit even

Page 3

though he did not satisfy the statutory fee at the time of its filing.

As Mr. Jacobs was informed in the court's screening order, it is the plaintiff's job to name the "person" he believes violated his constitutional rights as a defendant, or at the very least describe the person in sufficient detail so that he or she may be identified and located for service of process. The court is not authorized to act as plaintiff's attorney or to conduct an...