Smith v. Office of Children Serv.
| Docket Number | 3:23-cv-00100-JMK,3:23-cv-00110-JMK,3:23-cv-00134-JMK,3:23-cv-00135-JMK,3:23-cv-00136-JMK,3:23-cv-00244-JMK |
| Decision Date | 07 November 2023 |
| Parties | DIN OGAN SHANGO SMITH, Plaintiff, v. OFFICE OF CHILDREN SERVICES, et al., SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, et al., TANDESKEE, BANNATINE, ELMORE, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Alaska |
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
The Clerk has received filings from self-represented litigant Din Ogan Shango Smith that have been docketed and assigned case numbers in the Case Management/Electronic Case Files (CM/ECF) system, as set forth above. Plaintiff filed applications to proceed without paying the filing fee in each case. Plaintiff has subsequently filed numerous “Additional Related Documents” and Motions to submit additional documents.[1]
While the Court must liberally construe filings by self-represented litigants, all litigants are expected to review and comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Local Civil Rules, and all Court orders.[2] [3]
The Court takes judicial notice[4] of Plaintiff's prior federal cases alleging nearly identical violations of his rights and the state cases involving Plaintiff to the extent they are relevant.[5] Upon the Court's review, the Court finds these cases to be fundamentally similar and appropriate to address in the same order. The Court now screens Plaintiff's complaints in accordance with 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e) and 1915A.
In all civil cases in which a self-represented litigant has filed a motion to waive the filing fee, federal law requires the federal district court to screen the claims made in the complaint. Under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915, 1915A (the screening laws), a complaint must be dismissed if the action is:
Before a court may dismiss any portion of a complaint, a court must provide a 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.[6] Futility exists when “the allegation of other facts consistent with the challenged pleading could not possibly cure the deficiency.”[7]
Non-attorney litigants have no authority to represent anyone other than himself.[8] Accordingly, Plaintiff cannot bring claims on behalf of his children or any other individual or organization. Therefore, the Court only considers the allegations affecting Plaintiff personally.
To state a claim, a complaint must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.”[9] “[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'”[10] A claim is “plausible” when the facts alleged support a reasonable inference that the plaintiff is entitled to relief from a specific defendant for specific misconduct.[11] A complaint seeking relief from a federal court must be clear. It must be legibly handwritten or typewritten and have margins of at least one inch around all text.[12] A complaint should set out each claim for relief separately and include specifics about how each named defendant is involved in causing an injury to the plaintiff.[13] There can be no liability unless there is some affirmative link or connection between a defendant's actions and the claimed injury.[14] The Court is not required to accept as true conclusory allegations, unreasonable inferences, or unwarranted deductions of fact.[15]
The Complaint here is neither short nor plain and does not set forth facts that could state a viable claim for relief. During screening, the Court is not required “to wade through exhibits to determine whether cognizable claims have been stated.”[16] Nonetheless, in the interests of fundamental fairness, the Court attempted to flesh out Plaintiff's claims. Plaintiff's narrative contains unintelligible claims involving kidnapping, human trafficking, wrongful incarceration, the Magna Carta, embezzlement, evictions, garnished wages, denial of disability benefits, distribution of the Permanent Fund Dividend, genocide, and child abuse. Plaintiff has submitted hundreds of pages of attachments, including correspondence from the Social Security Administration, the Alaska Department of Revenue, the Alaska Department of Commerce, the Child Support Services Division, the Department of Motor Vehicles, the Louisiana Secretary of State, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, and Catholic Social Services. He also included his children's special education records, his medical records, records from state cases, and documents from cases previously dismissed by the Court. Many of the documents are duplicative, contain records involving defendants named in other actions, or concern events that likely are time-barred.
From what the Court can discern, Plaintiff's claims all concern the custody of his children and the family's finances. The Court has previously provided Plaintiff with ample guidance, yet Plaintiff brings claims duplicative of claims previously dismissed. Further, Plaintiff names defendants who are immune from suit and the events described appear to be facially time-barred by the Statute of Limitations.[17] If a claim is not filed within the applicable statute of limitations, dismissal is proper even if the plaintiff is self-represented.[18]
Federal courts are not required to entertain duplicative or redundant lawsuits and may dismiss them as frivolous or malicious.[19] A court may on its own initiative dismiss a case on preclusion grounds where the records of that court show that a previous action covering the same subject matter and parties has been dismissed. Dismissal with prejudice prevents subsequent refiling because it is considered an “adjudication on the merits.”[20] Once a plaintiff's claim is adjudicated, a person is precluded from bring the same claim again against those parties or those in privity with those parties.[21] Further, a case may be dismissed as frivolous if it “merely repeats pending or previously litigated claims.”[22] Based on the Court's review, most of Plaintiff's claims merely repeat claims brought previously.[23] These claims must be dismissed again as frivolous and duplicative of prior lawsuits.[24]
As the Court has previously advised Plaintiff, the State of Alaska and state agencies are immune from suit in federal court.[25] The Court also has informed Plaintiff that state social workers are generally accorded absolute immunity from lawsuits related to their decisions to institute proceedings and their custody decisions.[26]
Plaintiff claims that he was removed from a Social Security Administration office and assaulted by the police previously were dismissed and may not be realleged.[27] However, he also claims his benefits were denied and included documentation form the Social Security Administration.[28] To the extent Plaintiff seeks to challenge a decision of the Social Security Administration, Plaintiff is advised that a claimant in a Social Security case must exhaust his administrative remedies before filing a Complaint in federal district court.[29]
This administrative review process generally consists of the following four steps: (1) initial determination; (2) reconsideration determination[30]; (3) hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”); and (4) Appeals Council review.[31] 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) allows review of any final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”) made after a hearing, by a civil action in district court, commenced within 60 days after the mailing of notice of the decision to a claimant or as otherwise allowed by the Commissioner.[32]
To continue reading
Request your trial