Smithson v. Koons, CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:15-cv-01757

• Decision Date: 26 June 2017
• Docket Number: CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:15-cv-01757
• Parties: CHRISTIAN MICHAEL SMITHSON, Plaintiff, v. TREATMENT SUPERVISOR SCOTT KOONS, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Middle District of Pennsylvania

CHRISTIAN MICHAEL SMITHSON, Plaintiff, v. TREATMENT SUPERVISOR SCOTT KOONS, et al., Defendants.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:15-cv-01757

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

June 26, 2017

(KANE, J.)

(SAPORITO, M.J.)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

The plaintiff, Christian Michael Smithson,¹ filed his pro se complaint on September 4, 2015.² (Doc. 1). Attached to the complaint were several documentary exhibits, and Smithson filed additional exhibits in support of the complaint on September 23, 2015, and December 2, 2015. (Doc. 1; Doc. 7; Doc. 17). In the complaint, Smithson alleges that the defendants violated his constitutional right to access the courts on four separate occasions, and he claims that that he is entitled to an award of damages from each of the four defendants in the amount of $250,000 per violation pursuant to an "801 Notice" that he apparently believes operates in the nature of self-executing contract between himself and the defendants. Thus, he appears to seek an award of $1 million in contractual damages from each defendant.

For the reasons set forth herein, we recommend that the action be dismissed sua sponte as frivolous and for failure to state a claim, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), § 1915A(b)(1), and 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c)(1).

I. BACKGROUND

At the time of filing, Smithson was a criminal defendant in proceedings before the Court of Common Pleas for York County, Pennsylvania, being held in custody at the York County Prison. See Commonwealth v. Smithson, Docket Nos. CP-67-CR-0007794-2012, CP-67-CR-0000709-2013 (York Cty. C.C.P.). The charges are not specified in his pleadings, but it appears that he was found guilty and sentenced to serve a prison term while this federal civil action was pending, based on his subsequent transfer from the York County Prison to SCI Camp Hill, a state correctional institution located in Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. (See Doc. 18). Based on publicly available records, Smithson is currently incarcerated at SCI Rockview, a state correctional institution located in Centre County, Pennsylvania.

It is clear from the papers filed in this action that Smithson is an adherent

to the belief that even though he was born and resides in the United States, he is his own sovereign and is therefore not a United States citizen. This belief is the hallmark of the sovereign citizen movement. So-called sovereign citizens believe that they are not subject to government authority and employ various tactics in an attempt to, among other things, avoid paying taxes, extinguish debts, and derail criminal proceedings.

Gravatt v. United States, 100 Fed. Cl. 279, 282 (2011) (footnote omitted). See generally Charles E. Loeser, From Paper Terrorists to Cop Killers: The Sovereign Citizen Threat, 93 N.C. L. Rev. 1106, 1120-29 (2015) (describing the common beliefs and tactics of sovereign citizens).

The tactic adopted by Smithson here was the preparation of an "801 Notice" dated June 29, 2015, advising the defendants that they each would be fined $250,000 per violation of his constitutional rights. (Doc. 1, at 6). The "801 Notice" explicitly stated that: "NOTICE TO THE AGENT IS NOTICE TO THE PRINCIPAL & NOTICE TO THE PRINCIPAL IS NOTICE TO THE AGENT . . . ." (Id.).

On August 6, 2015, Smithson began submitting invoices charging the defendants $250,000 per alleged violation of his constitutional rights. (Doc. 1, at 7-14). The first set of invoices purported to charge each of the defendants $500,000 for unspecified violations that occurred on June 29, 2015, and August 5, 2015. (Id.). A second set of invoices purported to charge each defendant $250,000 for an unspecified violation that occurred on September 11, 2015. (Doc. 7). A third set of invoices purported to charge each defendant $250,000 for an unspecified violation that occurred on November 27, 2015. (Doc. 17). No copies of further invoices have been filed with the Court.³

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the Court is obligated to screen a civil complaint in which a prisoner is seeking redress from a governmental entity or an officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a); James v. Pa. Dep't of Corr., 230 Fed. App'x 195, 197 (3d Cir. 2007). The Court must dismiss the complaint if it is "frivolous" or "fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted." 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). The Court has a similar obligation with respect to actions brought in forma pauperis and actions concerning prison conditions. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c)(1). See generally Banks v. Cty. of Allegheny, 568 F. Supp. 2d 579, 587-89 (W.D. Pa. 2008) (summarizing prisoner litigation screening procedures and standards).

An action is "frivolous where it lacks an arguable basis in either law or fact." Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); see also Thomas v. Barker, 371 F. Supp. 2d 636, 639 (M.D. Pa. 2005). To determine whether it is frivolous, a court must assess a complaint "from an objective standpoint in order to determine whether the claim is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory or clearly baseless factual contention." Deutsch v. United States, 67 F.3d 1080, 1086 (3d Cir. 1995) (citing Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 34 (1992)); Thomas, 371 F. Supp. 2d at 639. Factual allegations are "clearly baseless" if they are "fanciful," "fantastic," or "delusional." See Denton, 504 U.S. at 32-33. "[A] finding of factual frivolousness is appropriate when the facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible, whether or not there are judicially noticeable facts available to contradict them." Id. at 33. A district court is further permitted, in its sound discretion, to dismiss a claim "if it determines that the claim is of little or no weight, value, or importance, not worthy of serious consideration, or trivial." Deutsch, 67 F.3d at 1089.

The legal standard for dismissing a complaint for failure to state a claim under § 1915A(b)(1), § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), or § 1997e(c)(1) is the same as that for dismissing a complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Brodzki v. Tribune Co., 481 Fed. App'x 705, 706 (3d Cir. 2012) (per curiam); Mitchell v. Dodrill, 696 F. Supp. 2d 454, 471 (M.D. Pa. 2010); Banks, 568 F. Supp. 2d at 588. "Under Rule 12(b)(6), a motion to dismiss may be granted only if, accepting all well-pleaded allegations in the complaint as true and viewing them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, a court finds the plaintiff's claims lack facial plausibility." Warren Gen. Hosp. v. Amgen Inc., 643 F.3d 77, 84 (3d Cir. 2011) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-56 (2007)). Although the Court must accept the fact allegations in the complaint as true, it is not compelled to accept "unsupported conclusions and unwarranted inferences, or a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation." Morrow v. Balaski, 719 F.3d 160, 165 (3d Cir. 2013) (quoting Baraka v. McGreevey, 481 F.3d 187, 195 (3d Cir. 2007)). In deciding the motion, the Court may consider the facts alleged on the face of the complaint, as well as "documents incorporated into the complaint by reference, and matters of which a court may take judicial notice." Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd., 551 U.S. 308, 322 (2007).

III. DISCUSSION

A. Access to the Courts

In his complaint, Smithson appears to claim that the four defendants—York County Prison; its warden, Mary Sabol; its deputy warden, Clair Doll; and a treatment supervisor there, Scott Koons—violated his constitutional right to access to courts on four separate occasions: June 29, August 5, September 11, and November 27, 2015.

It is well-established that "the fundamental constitutional right of access to the courts requires prison authorities to assist inmates in the preparation and filing of meaningful legal papers by providing prisoners with adequate law libraries or adequate assistance from persons trained in the law." Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 828 (1977). "A prisoner raising an access-to-courts claim must show that the denial of access caused him to suffer an actual injury." Garcia v. Dechan, 384 Fed. App'x 94, 95 (3d Cir. 2010) (per curiam); see also Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 351 (1996). "An actual injury occurs when the prisoner is prevented from or has lost the opportunity to pursue a 'nonfrivolous' and 'arguable' claim." Garcia, 384 Fed. App'x at 95; see also Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S. 403, 415 (2002); Favors v. Hoover, No. 13-cv-428 (JRT/LIB), 2014 WL 4954682, at *18 (D. Minn. May 13, 2014) ("Mere disturbance in the pursuit of litigation without prejudice to litigation interests does not suffice to allege actual injury.") (citing Monskey v. Moraghan, 127 F.3d 243, 247 (2d Cir. 1997)). Moreover, under Bounds, the "injury requirement is not satisfied by just any type of frustrated legal claim." Lewis, 518 U.S. at 354.

Bounds does not guarantee inmates the wherewithal to transform themselves into litigating engines capable of filing everything from shareholder derivative actions to slip-and-fall claims. The tools it requires to be provided are those that the inmates need in order to attack their sentences, directly or collaterally, and in order to challenge the conditions of their confinement. Impairment of any other litigating capacity is simply one of the incidental (and perfectly constitutional) consequences of conviction and incarceration.

Id. at 355.

With respect to the state criminal proceedings against Smithson, based on publicly available court records, it is clear that Smithson was represented by court-appointed counsel—Seamus Donohue Dubbs, Esq.—on the relevant dates. See Commonwealth v. Smithson, Docket Nos. CP-67- CR-0007794-2012, CP-67-CR-0000709-2013 (York Cty. C.C.P.).⁴ This fact forecloses any access-to-courts claims with respect to Smithson's state criminal proceedings as a matter of law. See Pressley v. Johnson, 268 Fed. App'x...