McDowell v. Anamosa State Penitentiary
| Decision Date | 22 April 2022 |
| Docket Number | 22-CV-1-CJW-KEM |
| Parties | KEITH McDOWELL, Plaintiff, v. ANAMOSA STATE PENITENTIARY, CARRIE KLATT, LAURA BARNER, HEROLD DEVILBISS, FNU GUDENKAUF, DARREN BURKEN, CARLOS CASTILLO, and MIKE KUHN, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa |
This matter is before the Court for review of plaintiff Keith McDowell's Complaint filed under Title 42, United States Code, Section 1983 concerning conditions and treatment while he was incarcerated at the Anamosa State Penitentiary (Doc 1) and a Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc 6). For the reasons that follow, the Court grants plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and, having conducted an initial review of plaintiff's complaint, the Court finds that it fails to state a claim and the complaint is dismissed.
Plaintiff is required to submit a filing fee upon instituting a civil action. 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). A person seeking to bring a civil action without payment of the required fee may apply for the Court's leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Id. § 1915(a). In support of the application to proceed in forma pauperis, a person must also submit an affidavit that includes a statement of all assets the person has and the person's inability to pay the filing fee.[1] Id. § 1915(a)(1). In addition, a prisoner must submit a certified copy of his prisoner trust fund account statement for the previous six-month period or institutional equivalent. Id. § 1915(a)(2).
Plaintiff is a prisoner incarcerated at the Newton Correctional Facility. In his motion to proceed in forma pauperis, plaintiff submitted the required affidavit and a completed copy of the standard certificate of offender account and assets, signed by the appropriate prison official, which sets out that plaintiff has $4.97 in his prison account, that over the last six months plaintiff has had an average account balance of $42.25, and the six month deposit average is $248.83. (See Doc. 6). Thus, plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis is granted.
Nevertheless, even though the Court deems it appropriate to grant the plaintiff in forma pauperis status, plaintiff is still required to pay the full $402.00 filing fee by making payments on an installment basis because he is incarcerated. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1); see also In re Tyler, 110 F.3d 528, 529-30 (8th Cir. 1997) (). The filing fee will be collected even if the court dismisses the case because it is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks money damages against a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
Plaintiff must pay an initial partial filing fee in the amount of twenty percent of the greater of his average monthly account balance or average monthly deposits for the six months preceding the filing of the complaint. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). Based on the documents that plaintiff submitted, the Court finds that initial partial filing fee is $49.77. (See Doc. 6). Plaintiff shall submit $49.77 by no later than thirty days from the date of this order.
In addition to the initial partial filing fee, plaintiff must “make monthly payments of 20 percent of the preceding month's income credited to the prisoner's account.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). The statute places the burden on the prisoner's institution to collect the additional monthly payments and forward them to the court. Specifically:
[a]fter payment of the initial partial filing fee, the prisoner shall be required to make monthly payments of 20 percent of the preceding month's income credited to the prisoner's account. The agency having custody of the prisoner shall forward payments from the prisoner's account to the clerk of the court each time the amount in the account exceeds $10 until the filing fees are paid.
28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). Therefore, after plaintiff pays in full the initial partial filing fee, the remaining installments shall be collected by the institution having custody of the plaintiff. The clerk's office shall send a copy of this order and the notice of collection of filing fee to the appropriate official at the place where plaintiff is an inmate.
Under Title 28, United States Code, Section 1915A, this case is subject to immediate review because it is a “civil action in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity.” According to Section 1915A, such a complaint must be dismissed if it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim for which relief may be granted, or if it seeks monetary relief from a defendant that is immune from suit. See e.g., Smith v. Miller, Case No. 21-CV-18-CJW-MAR, 2021 WL 917482 (N.D. Iowa Mar. 10, 2021).
In reviewing a prisoner or in forma pauperis complaint, unless the facts alleged are clearly baseless, a court must weigh them in favor of the plaintiff. See Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32-33 (1992). A claim is “frivolous” if it “lacks an arguable basis in law or in fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); accord Cokeley v. Endell, 27 F.3d 331, 332 (8th Cir. 1994). In determining whether a complaint fails to state a claim on initial review, courts generally rely on the standards articulated under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Mitchell v. Farcass, 112 F.3d 1483, 1490 (11th Cir. 1997); see also Atkinson v. Bohn, 91 F.3d 1127, 1128-29 (8th Cir. 1996) (). An action fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted if it does not plead “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). Accordingly, a court may review the complaint and dismiss sua sponte those claims that fail “to raise a right to relief above the speculative level, ” id. at 555, or that are premised on meritless legal theories or clearly lack any factual basis, see Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 325.
Section 1983 was designed to provide a “broad remedy for violations of federally protected civil rights.” Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 685 (1978). Nevertheless, Title 42, United States Code, Section 1983 provides no substantive rights. See Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266, 271 (1994); Graham v. Conner, 490 U.S. 386, 393-94 (1989); Chapman v. Houston Welfare Rights Org., 441 U.S. 600, 617 (1979).
“One cannot go into court and claim a ‘violation of [Section] 1983'-for [Section] 1983 by itself does not protect anyone against anything.” Id. at 617. Rather, Section 1983 provides a remedy for violations of all “rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws [of the United States].” 42 U.S.C. § 1983; see also Albright, 510 U.S. at 271 (); Graham, 490 U.S. at 393-94 (same); Maine v. Thiboutot, 448 U.S. 1, 4 (1980) (“Constitution and laws” means Section 1983 provides remedies for violations of rights created by federal statute, as well as those created by the Constitution.). To state a claim under Section 1983, a plaintiff must establish: (1) the violation of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States and (2) the alleged deprivation of that right was committed by a person acting under color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).
Plaintiff's complaint contains a series of allegations about the conditions of his confinement while an inmate at the Anamosa State Penitentiary (“ASP”) for which he seeks damages in the amount of $55 million. (Doc. 1). Each of his claims lack merit and most, if not all, are patently frivolous. The Court will address each in turn. But first it notes that plaintiff's complaint fails to state a claim against the ASP. Here, plaintiff is seeking monetary damages, not injunctive relief. “By its terms, § 1983 applies to ‘persons,' and it is well settled that state agencies . . . are not ‘persons' for purposes of § 1983.” Mills v. Iowa Bd. of Regents, 770 F.Supp.2d 986, 992 (S.D. Iowa 2011) (citing Will v. Mich. Dep't of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 63-71 (1989)). Thus, irrespective of the merits of each claim, the Court would dismiss the ASP as a defendant.
Plaintiff's first claim is that when he first arrived at the ASP, he was housed in “an area known as D-3” which plaintiff alleges “is a condemned area.” (Doc. 1, at 4-5).
Plaintiff alleges he was then moved to a building where the cells “were so small they were meant to house one person but a majority of us had cellmates.” (Id., at 5). Plaintiff does not identify the person or persons he claims is responsible for his placement in these locations and does not describe any injury he suffered as a result of being housed in these locations. Plaintiff does not allege when this occurred.
Plaintiff's allegations fail to state a claim for several reasons. First,...
To continue reading
Request your trial