Settle v. Obama
| Decision Date | 17 November 2015 |
| Docket Number | No. 3:15-cv-365-PLR-CCS,3:15-cv-365-PLR-CCS |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Tennessee |
| Parties | MIKE SETTLE, Plaintiff, v. BARACK OBAMA, et al. Defendants. |
The Court is in receipt of a pro se prisoner's civil rights complaint and an application to proceed in forma pauperis. Mike Settle, a prisoner confined in the Morgan County Correctional Facility ("MCCX") brings this civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Barack Obama, U.S. Department of Justice, Theresa Weathers, and Jonathon Smith [Doc. 1]. Now before the Court is Plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis [Doc. 2], Plaintiff's motion to appoint counsel [Doc. 3], Plaintiff's motion to amend/revise complaint [Doc. 4], and Plaintiff's motion to subpoena mental health records [Doc. 6].
Plaintiff's application to proceed without prepayment of fees [Doc. 2] is GRANTED. Nonetheless, because Plaintiff is a prisoner, he is ASSESSED the filing fee of three hundred and fifty dollars ($350). McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 607 (6th Cir. 1997), overruled on other grounds by Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (2007). The custodian of Plaintiff's inmate trust account at the institution where he now resides shall submit, as an initial partial payment, whichever is the greater of: (a) twenty percent (20%) of the average monthly deposits to the Plaintiff's inmate trust account; or (b) twenty percent (20%) of the average monthly balance in his inmate trust account for the six-month period preceding the filing of the complaint. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1)(A) and (B). Thereafter, the trust account custodian shall submit twenty percent (20%) of Plaintiff's preceding monthly income (or income credited to his trust account for the preceding month), but only when such monthly income exceeds $10.00, until the full filing fee of $350 has been paid to the Clerk's Office. McGore, 114 F.3d at 607.
Payments should be sent to: Clerk, USDC; 800 Market Street, Suite 130, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902. To ensure compliance with the fee-collection procedure, the Clerk is DIRECTED to mail a copy of this memorandum and order to the custodian of inmate accounts at the institution where Plaintiff is now confined. The Clerk is also DIRECTED to furnish a copy of this order to the Court's financial deputy. This order shall be placed in Plaintiff's prison file and follow him if he is transferred to another correctional institution.
Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ("PLRA"), district courts must screen prisoner complaints and sua sponte dismiss those that are frivolous or malicious, fail to state a claim for relief, or are against a defendant who is immune. See, e.g., Benson v. O'Brian, 179 F.3d 1014 (6th Cir. 1999).
In screening this complaint, the Court bears in mind that pro se pleadings filed in civil rights cases must be liberally construed and held to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). Still, the pleading must be sufficient "to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face," Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007), which simply means that the factual content pled by a plaintiff must permit a court "to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for themisconduct alleged," Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556).
The "facial plausibility" standard does not require "detailed factual allegations, but it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation." Id. at 678 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). The standard articulated in Twombly and Iqbal "governs dismissals for failure to state a claim under [28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A] because the relevant statutory language tracks the language in Rule 12(b)(6)." Hill v. Lappin, 630 F.3d 468, 470-71 (6th Cir. 2010).
For the purpose of screening the complaint in its entirety, the Court will first address Plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint [Doc. 4].
Plaintiff seeks to amend his complaint to add three defendants to his case [Doc. 4].
Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows a party to amend its pleading "once as a matter of course" within twenty-one days after service or twenty-one days after service of a responsive pleading or a Rule 12(b)(e) or (f) motion, whichever is earlier. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(A)(B). The docket reflects the motion to amend was filed within the time limits set out in the Federal Rules, however, the Court finds that Plaintiff failed to comply with the Local Rules of the Eastern District of Tennessee. Local Rule 15.1 requires that E.D. Tenn. L.R. 15.1. Any amended complaint must be complete in itself without reference to his original complaint, as the original complaintwill be superseded by the amended complaint. In Plaintiff's amended complaint, the previously named defendants are not mentioned in the body of the document, but still named in the style.
However, the Court interprets Plaintiff's motion as a motion to file a supplement to his original complaint rather than a motion to amend. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(d). The Court notes that pro se litigants' court submissions are to be construed liberally and held to a less stringent standard than submissions of lawyers. McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106, 113 (1993); Pilgrim v. Littlefield, 92 F.3d 413, 416 (6th Cir. 1996); Jourdan v. Jabe, 951 F.2d 108, 110 (6th Cir. 1996). If the court can reasonably read the submissions, it should do so despite failure to cite proper legal authority, confusion of legal theories, poor syntax and sentence construction, or litigant's unfamiliarity with rule requirements. Boag v. MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364, 102 S.Ct. 700, 70 L.Ed.2d 551 (1982).
Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion to amend is GRANTED, and Derrick Schofield, Douglas Stephens, and Bruce Westbrook are hereby added as defendants to the original complaint.
Plaintiff originally filed suit against President Barack Obama, United States Department of Justice ("DOJ"), Theresa Weathers, and Jonathon Smith. In his complaint, Plaintiff claimed to be in imminent danger of serious physical and mental injury because he is denied the "'same' treatment" regarding access to legal documents and resources as federal prisoners" [Doc. 1 p. 4]. Specifically, Plaintiff claims that he is denied "appropriate resources" and "reasonable access" to federal materials and forms as a federal offender in state custody [Id.].
Plaintiff argues that the DOJ must provide "reasonable access to legal material and reasonable opportunity to prepare legal documents" [Id. at 5]. Plaintiff further argues that theDOJ must provide "'appropriate resources' for [P]laintiff['s] needs in state custody as a 'federal offender'" [Id.]. Plaintiff claims that "[f]reedom of information require[s] [the DOJ] to disclose 'pardon or commute' information to Plaintiff" [Id.]. In support thereof, Plaintiff cites to the "Freedom of Information Act" and states that the DOJ is required to "disclose[] 'pardon or commute' information to Plaintiff" to assist him in "preparing legal documents in state custody" [Id. at 6].
Moreover, Plaintiff complains that the library at M.C.C.X. does not have federal "pardon or commute" forms available to access [Id. at 9]. However, federal prisoners serving time in a federal penitentiary have access to all federal forms [Id.]. Plaintiff argues that he should be afforded the same treatment as a federal offender in state custody [Id. at 9].
Plaintiff requested by mail that Defendant Weathers send him any official documents for "pardon or commute" of his federal sentence [Id. at 6]. Plaintiff states that on January 28, 2011, Weathers denied him reasonable access to legal material necessary to "pardon or commute" his federal sentence [Id.].
Also, on October 22, 2014, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Smith stated in a letter to Plaintiff that he is not authorized to address issues with federal facilities or federal officials [Id.].
Thereafter, Plaintiff wrote a letter to President Obama requesting to be pardoned from his federal sentence based on President Obama's "commute" of forty-six (46) non-violent federal inmate sentences on July 14, 2015 [Id. at 7]. Plaintiff argues that he should be treated the same as those pardoned federal prisoners even though his charge was classified as violent rather than non-violent [Id.]. Plaintiff argues that he was "victimized" because due to his violent classification he was not considered for pardon, and thus, discriminated against [Id.]. Plaintiff claims that he should be treated the same as all federal prisoners, and his convictionclassification should be irrelevant [Id.]. Plaintiff states that President Obama commuting only non-violent federal prisoner is unconstitutional because "prisoners are to be treated fairly and impartially by all federal personnel" [Id.].
Plaintiff argues that President Obama is not immune from his § 1983 allegations because the President has a duty to provide every federal prisoner with the same fair and impartial treatment regarding pardon or commuting sentences [Id. at 8]. Similarly, Plaintiff argues that Defendants Weathers and Smith are likewise not immune based on their employment at the DOJ because they failed to perform their duties placing Plaintiff in imminent danger of serious physical and mental injury [Id.].
Plaintiff maintains that he had no knowledge that he had a right to the same treatment as federal prisoners regarding access to legal forms...
To continue reading
Request your trial