Rindahl v. Noem
| Decision Date | 05 June 2020 |
| Docket Number | 4:20-CV-04044-RAL |
| Parties | RANDY LEE RINDAHL, Plaintiff, v. KRISTI NOEM, GOVERNOR FOR THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA IN HER OFFICIAL AND UNOFFICIAL CAPACITY; MIKE LEIDHOLT, SECRETARY OF CORRECTIONS IN HIS OFFICIAL AND UNOFFICIAL CAPACITY; DARIN YOUNG, WARDEN IN HIS OFFICIAL AND UNOFFICIAL CAPACITY; TROY PONTO, ASSOC. WARDEN IN HIS OFFICIAL AND UNOFFICIAL CAPACITY; JOHN BENITON, ASSOC. WARDEN IN HIS OFFICIAL AND UNOFFICIAL CAPACITY; CLIFF FANTROY, DIRECTOR OF SECURITY IN HIS OFFICIAL AND UNOFFICIAL CAPACITY; CHAD ROBERT, MAJOR IN HIS OFFICIAL AND UNOFFICIAL CAPACITY; KEITH DITMANSON, SECTION MANAGER IN HIS OFFICIAL AND UNOFFICIAL CAPACITY; C. WYNIA, LT. SPECIAL INVESTIGATION UNIT IN HIS OFFICIAL AND UNOFFICIAL CAPACITY; WELDING, SSGT INDENTIFICATION OFFICE IN HIS OFFICIAL AND UNOFFICIAL CAPACITY; AND MILLER, WEST HALL COORDINATOR IN HIS OFFICIAL AND UNOFFICIAL CAPACITY; GLOBAL TEL LINK CORPORATION (GTL); JEFF HAIDINGER, EMPLOYEE OF GTL; STEVE MANTANORIS, EMPLOYEE OF GTL; M. KING, REGIONAL MANAGER OF GTL; L. OLSEN, GROUDN PERSONNEL FOR GTL; Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of South Dakota |
ORDER DENYING PLANTIFF'S MOTION FOR CHANGE OF VENUE AND 1915A SCREENING FOR SERVICE IN PART AND DISMISSAL IN PART
Plaintiff Randy Lee Rindahl filed a pro se class action lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Doc. 1. Rindahl is a barred filer under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, but he paid the entire filing fee on March 18, 2020. See 4:17-CV-4104-RAL, Doc. 9. Rindahl moves to add defendants, Doc. 3, and moves for a change of venue, Doc. 4.
Rindahl moves to add Global Tel Link Corporation (GTL), Jeff Haidinger, Steve Mantanoris, M. King, and L. Olsen as defendants. Doc. 3-1 at 1. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1) allows a party to amend his complaint once as a matter of course. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1). At this time, Rindahl does not need the Court's leave to amend his complaint. Defendants GTL, Haidinger, Mantanoris, King, and Olsen are added as defendants and will be considered during this Court's screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.2 Rindahl's motion, Doc. 3, is denied as moot.
Rindahl asks that his case be moved to the District of Minnesota because he believes there is an "inability to obtain a bias free forum within the District of South Dakota- relevant to [the] political an[d] budget cross-over[.]" Doc. 4. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) and (b), this Court has the discretion to transfer a civil action when appropriate to do so. Section 1404(a) allows a district court to "transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought or to any district or division to which all parties have consented." Section 1404(b) allows the court to transfer a civil action from a division in which the case is pending to another division within thesame district. Neither § 1404(a) nor § 1404(b) supports granting Rindahl's motion for a change of venue. Rindahl's arguments about being unable to "obtain a bias free forum" because of "political an[d] budget cross-over" are misguided. The defendants Rindahl names are employed by the state of South Dakota and a private corporation. The District of South Dakota is a federal court which operates completely independently from the South Dakota state courts, state agencies and the state budget. The District of South Dakota federal court routinely presides over cases involving state actors. Rindahl's motion for change of venue, Doc. 4, is denied.
Rindahl brings this lawsuit "on behalf of himself- and similar like persons" under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Doc. 1 at 1. His Complaint alleges violations that have occurred from 2015 to 2019. See id. He claims that the South Dakota Department of Corrections (SDDOC) has entered into a contract with Global Tel Link Corporation (GTL) that provides email, e-books, phone services, and streaming services. Id. at 2. Rindahl believes that this contract is fraudulent and a misrepresentation because it allegedly violates federal regulations. Id. Rindahl claims he is unlawfully billed, which he believes proves that there is an illegal and unconstitutional partnership between defendants. Id. at 2-3.
Rindahl has asked for defendants to examine the billing records and believes that SDDOC and GTL have "failed to disclose" the billing rate and "contractual rate changes." Id. at 3. He has contacted GTL about the billing on some of his phone calls and they allegedly responded with a "false statement [that] 'There was no charge[.]' " Id. at 4. Rindahl claims SDDOC has not responded to his questions about the billing rate or charges and that defendants have failed to investigate his claims of fraud and misrepresentation. Id. at 4, 35.
Rindahl also believes that there has been "illegal altering of GTL Software through actions of 1 or more DOC [w]orkstations, creating obstruction- and illegal calling practices" and the SDDOC has failed to investigate. Id. at 6. Rindahl claims he has requested that the SDDOC investigate the alleged "fraudulent billing practices" and that he has uncovered a three-year period of illegal billing practices. Id. at 11. He believes that the SDDOC has refused to remedy the billing issue and claims that GTL and SDDOC are violating the Sherman Act through their "illegal partnership" and "billing fraud." Id. at 13.
Rindahl alleges that the contract between GTL and SDDOC has an intent to obstruct his access to legal advice. Id. at 7, 19. Rindahl claims that he has unsuccessfully tried to put federal and state courthouses phone numbers on his phone list. Id. at 14. Between 2017 until present, Rindahl has tried to contact: 1) Paul Ryan's Offices; 2) Wisconsin Department of Justice; 3) the Governor of Wisconsin; 4) "Wisconsin 1st District;" 5) D.C. Federal Courthouse; 6) Keith Loken (attorney); 7) Renee Christensen (attorney); 8) Eastern District of Virginia; 9) Chris McKinney (Wisconsin Office of Gov. Affairs); and 10) Angela Kennecke (Keloland News). Id. at 13-14. All of these requests to have the individuals, offices, and courts to be put on his calling list were either allegedly not responded to or blocked. Id. at 13-15. Rindahl believes that the defendants are obstructing him from contacting certain entities and people and that this "obstruction" has amounted to a violation of his right to access the courts. Id. at 15-23.
Rindahl has requested information about his account from GTL and claims that they responded that it was no longer available and on another occasion that " '[y]our attorney has to subpoena for them now I can't just print them.' " Id. at 24. Rindahl has requested his billing statement and a print-out of phone numbers multiple times and allegedly receives the same answer that the records can only be given by attorney subpoena. Id. at 24-26. Rindahl claims that GTLdoes not disclose its service rates accurately to its consumers (inmates). Id. at 27. He believes there have been calling rate increases that have not been acknowledged by SDDOC and GTL and claims this is fraud. Id. at 28. Rindahl believes that SDDOC has had access to the GTL operating system and that it is causing "obstruction of phone lines." Id. at 31. Rindahl also challenges the fees attached to the email services and the defendants' limitation on the number of characters, and the "needless delays of 24 hrs to 48 hrs upon receipt of email[] transfer to [an] inmate['s] tablet[.]" Id. at 33. Rindahl identifies over 40 statutes/regulations he believes the defendants are violating. Id. at 1, 34. He seeks remedy through injunctive relief and monetary damages. See id. at 34-44.
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); see 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 (internal citations omitted); 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).
Rindahl seeks to bring a class action lawsuit against the defendant. Doc. 1 at 1. "Pro se litigants may not represent the interests of other parties." Litschewski v. Dooley, No. CIV. 11-4105-RAL...
To continue reading
Request your trial