James v. James
Decision Date | 03 September 2019 |
Docket Number | Case No. 4:19-cv-00020-SLG |
Parties | SAMSON EUGENE JAMES, Plaintiff, v. FRANK JAMES, et al., Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Alaska |
Samson Eugene James, a self-represented prisoner, has filed a Civil Rights Complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and an Application to Waive the Filing Fee under 28 U.S.C. §1915(a).1 Mr. James names three Defendants: (1) Frank James, his brother (a retired Army officer); Officer Benns, a Fairbanks police officer; and Officer Kelly, an Anchorage police officer.2 He also makes allegations against the FBI and other individuals in the body of his Complaint. Mr. James indicates that he is suing the police officers in both their personal and officialcapacities,3 but he does not provide such information about his brother.4 Nor does he state whether his brother is a state officer. Mr. James seeks $3 million in compensatory damages, $2 million in punitive damages, and an order requiring all police officers to stay away from him.5
After filing his Complaint, Mr. James appears to have been released from incarceration.6 Further, the Court takes judicial notice7 that, of the criminal cases listed in the state docket, Mr. James was convicted of a misdemeanor on June 7, 2019,8 and the most recent event on the docket in his other misdemeanor case isthe August 15, 2019 "Findings and Order on Competence for Legal Proceedings, Commitment, and Transport."9
To determine whether a complaint states a valid claim for relief, a court considers if it contains sufficient factual matter that if accepted as true "state[s] a claim to relief that is plausible on its face."11 In conducting its review, the court is mindful that it must liberally construe a self-represented plaintiff's pleading and give the plaintiff the benefit of any doubt.12 Before a court may dismiss any portionof a complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, the court must provide the plaintiff with a statement of the deficiencies in the complaint and an opportunity to amend or otherwise address the problems, unless to do so would be futile.13
Factual Allegations
Mr. James' third claim for relief is against FBI agents in Macon, Georgia for events allegedly occurring in about June 1989:
Given the allegations supplied in his Complaint and attachments, it appears unlikely that Mr. James will be able to state a viable claim for relief in federal court. And this Court has no jurisdiction over the Georgia defendants and claims as presented in Claim 3. But because the Court liberally construes pro se pleadings, and gives liberal leave to amend, Mr. James will be given an opportunity to try to state a claim for relief under § 1983 against a state actor for (1) deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs, (2) excessive force, and/or (3) for failure to protect, if any of those claims are appropriate as explained below.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) requires that a complaint include:
Mr. James has not submitted a short and plain statement of any claim thatshows he may be entitled to relief in the federal court.
Jurisdiction is "[a] court's power to decide a case or issue a decree[.]"23 As explained by the United States Supreme Court, 24 That is, the United States Constitution or a federal statute must generally be at issue to establish this Court's jurisdiction.25 It is Mr. James' burden, as the plaintiff, to show that this Court has jurisdiction to hear his claims.26 Mr. James has filed claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
42 U.S.C. § 1983 "provides a cause of action for state deprivations of federal rights."27 That is, a plaintiff has "a cause of action against [1] state actors who [2]violate an individual's rights under federal law."28 Critically, a plaintiff must establish a causal link between the state action and the alleged violation of his or her rights.29 These essential elements must be alleged in a § 1983 claim.
Section 1983 "is not itself a source of substantive rights," but provides "a method for vindicating rights [found] elsewhere."30 That is, § 1983 provides a mechanism for remedying violations of pre-existing constitutional or federal rights. To be deprived of a right, the defendant's action needs to either violate rights guaranteed to individuals by the U.S. Constitution or an enforceable right created by a federal statute.31
Thus, to plead a proper § 1983 claim, a plaintiff must allege plausible facts that if proven would establish each of the following elements: (1) a violation of rights protected by the U.S. Constitution or created by federal statute, (2) proximately caused (3) by conduct of a person (4) acting under color of state law.All of these elements must be alleged in a complaint in order to maintain a § 1983 claim.
For instance, in his first claim for relief, Mr. James has not stated who beat him and on what precise date(s) he was beaten. If it was his brother, Frank James, was his brother acting in the role of a government official at the time? Mr. James does not state that any specific state officer either used excessive force or failed to protect him from being beaten. Unless a person "acting under color of state law" violated Mr. James' federal rights, he has no civil rights claim in federal court. And although Mr. James claims that Officer Larimer "ran him off," he has not listed Officer Larimer as a defendant; nor has he specifically stated clear facts as to what federal rights, if any, Officer Larimer violated.32
Mr. James alleges that (1) after he was beaten up, he went to see his doctor and the paramedics were called, but that Police...
To continue reading
Request your trial