Taylor v. Reynolds
| Decision Date | 29 October 2022 |
| Docket Number | 22-cv-459-pp |
| Parties | ISIAH TAYLOR, III, Plaintiff, v. MICHELLE SCHMUDE REYNOLDS, DONALD REYNOLDS, and UNCAGED MINDS PUBLISHING, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Wisconsin |
ORDER DENYING AS MOOT PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED WITHOUT PREPAYING FILING FEE (DKT. NO. 4) AND DIRECTING U.S. MARSHALS SERVICE TO SERVE COMPLAINT UNDER FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 4
Isiah Taylor, III, who is confined at Gilmer Federal Correctional Institution in Glenville, West Virginia and who is representing himself, has filed a civil case alleging that the defendants breached a contract he had with them to publish a book. Dkt. No. 1. The plaintiff also has filed a motion for leave to proceed without prepaying the filing fee. Dkt. No. 4. This decision resolves the plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed without prepaying the filing fee, dkt no. 4, and orders the United States Marshals Service to serve the complaint on the defendants.
The Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) applies to this case because the plaintiff was incarcerated when he filed his complaint. See 28 U.S.C. §1915(h). The PLRA lets the court allow an incarcerated plaintiff to proceed with his case without prepaying the civil case filing fee. 28 U.S.C. §1915(a)(2). When funds exist, the plaintiff must pay an initial partial filing fee. 28 U.S.C. §1915(b)(1). He then must pay the balance of the $350 filing fee over time, through deductions from his prisoner account. Id.
On May 2, 2022, the court ordered the plaintiff to pay an initial partial filing fee of $35.10. Dkt. No. 6. The court received $50.00 on June 13, 2022. On September 6, 2022, the clerk's office noted on the docket that the plaintiff had paid the filing fee in full. Dkt. No. 10. The court will deny as moot the plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed without prepaying the filing fee.
When an incarcerated person “seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity,” the PLRA requires the court to review the complaint, and to dismiss it if it is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. §1915A. The plaintiff has not sued governmental employees or entities; he has sued a publishing company and employees of that company. That means that §1915A does not apply. In cases where an incarcerated person asks permission to proceed without prepaying the filing fee, the PLRA requires the court to dismiss the case if the plaintiff's allegations of indigence prove to be false, or if the case is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim for which relief may be granted or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune. 28 U.S.C. §1915. Although the plaintiff did ask permission to proceed without prepaying the filing fee, he subsequently paid the fee in full and the court has denied that motion as moot. It is not clear whether §1915(e) applies.
The court will summarize the allegations in the complaint, flag a potential jurisdictional issue and direct the United States Marshals Service to serve the complaint on the defendants.
The plaintiff alleges that in July 2021, after seeing an ad in a magazine and speaking with another incarcerated person at his facility, he reached out to defendant Uncaged Minds Publishing about publishing a book he had written. Dkt. No. 1 at 1-2. He says that the book, titled “Heart Break Ho-Tail,” is about a personal relationship he had with a woman. Id. at 1. The plaintiff alleges that he communicated with defendant Michelle Reynolds via letters and emails about publishing the book. Id. He allegedly received a contract from Ms. Reynolds, and the plaintiff had his mother mail his manuscript to Uncaged Minds Publishing, P.O. Box 436, Green Bay, Wisconsin, 54305. Id.
The plaintiff states that in October 2021, he signed and returned Uncaged Minds' publishing contract followed by four checks of $250, for a total of $1000. Id. He says that in a September 21, 2021 email Reynolds responded that she would let the plaintiff know when the payment had arrived. Id. The plaintiff indicates that "[w]ith respect to the downtime the world faced due to Covid-19, from Oct. 2021, a number of letter's and e-mails went out to Ms. Michelle Reynolds, and Uncaged Minds Publishing requiring the status of the receiving of the mannuscript, [sic] the $1,000.00 and status on how the publishing of the book was coming . . . ." Id. at 2-3. The plaintiff alleges that as of April 2022 (when he filed his complaint), he had not heard from Uncaged Minds Publishing or from Ms. Reynolds. Id. at 2, 3.
According to the plaintiff, once the last of the four checks "left [his] inmate acct.," Ms. Reynolds ended communication and removed the company's phone number and email address from the website. Id. at 3. At that point, all the plaintiff had was a post office box address; the plaintiff says he continued to write to that address with no response. Id. The plaintiff explains that his institution has provided him evidence that the four checks he sent were received and cashed. Id.
The plaintiff says that the publishing company's contract allegedly states that it will publish a book 120 days after receiving full payment, if there was no delay by the author. Id. at 4. The plaintiff states that he did not delay, and the company did not offer a first proof reading of his book and he has not seen the book cover. Id. The plaintiff identifies another incarcerated person who he says also entered into an agreement with Reynolds and Uncaged Minds; he says that this individual lost $4,000 and several books that the individual is trying to retrieve. Id. The plaintiff believes that Reynolds and the publishing company are frauds and are targeting incarcerated persons. Id. He says the magazine in which he saw the ad has provided no help in locating Reynolds. Id. at 4-5.
The plaintiff says that Ms. Reynolds and Uncaged Minds Publishing are past the 120-day deadline and show no signs of honoring their contract; he asks the court to provide him with a lawyer to help move his case forward. Id. at 5. He says he has contacted a “handful” of legal aid organizations, but all of them advised him to file the lawsuit on his own due to limited resources. Id. at 3. He states that as he was preparing the complaint, he learned that defendant Donald Reynolds, who is confined at F.C.I. Beckley Prison, is the actual owner of Uncaged Minds Publishing and that he allows Ms. Reynolds to act as the spokesperson for the company. Id. at 7. The plaintiff says that there has been at least one other lawsuit filed against the defendants by someone incarcerated at F.C.I. Allenwood, citing Wiggins v. Reynolds, Case No. 2:2021CV01488 filed on December 30, 2021. Id.
For relief, the plaintiff seeks, (1) return of his manuscript and $1,000; (2) if the manuscript is lost, $100,000; and (3) to honor the contract by publishing “Heart Break Ho-Tail.” Id. at 5.
As stated above, it is not clear that the court has the authority to screen the complaint under the PLRA (28 U.S.C. §1915A) or the in forma pauperis statute (28 U.S.C. §1915). So even if the complaint fails to state a claim for which a federal court may grant relief, it is not clear that the court has the authority to dismiss it on that ground at this stage. But “[t]he federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and . . . have an obligation at each state of the proceedings to ensure that [they] have subject matter jurisdiction over the dispute.” Ne. Rural Elec. Membership Corp. v. Wabash Valley Power Ass'n, Inc., 707 F.3d 883, 890 (7th Cir. 2013). If a federal court does not have subject matter jurisdiction, it must dismiss a case. See, e.g., United States v. Furando, 40 F.4th 567, 576 (7th Cir. 2022). See also, Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3) (). That said, the Seventh Circuit Id. (quoting George v. Islamic Rep. of Iran, 63 Fed. App'x 91, 918 (7th Cir. 2003)). By this order, the court gives the plaintiff notice that the court may lack subject matter jurisdiction over his claims.
There are limits on the kinds of cases that a federal court may consider. It can consider and decide cases that involve violations of federal laws or the federal Constitution. 28 U.S.C. §1331. Federal courts also can consider and decide lawsuits between citizens of different states, if the amount of money in dispute is more than $75,000. 28 U.S.C. §1332. Federal courts cannot consider and decide lawsuits that involve alleged violations of state law, unless the plaintiff and the defendant live in two different states, or unless the state-law claims relate to a federal claim.
The plaintiff alleges that the defendants have breached a contract and have committed fraud, which are state law claims. For the court to have jurisdiction to hear this dispute, the plaintiff must be a citizen of a different state than all the defendants and the amount in controversy must exceed $75,000. 28 U.S.C. §1332(a).
The plaintiff says that he is confined at FCI Gilmer, which is in Glenville, West Virginia. The plaintiff states that Donald Reynolds is confined at FCI Beckley,...
To continue reading
Request your trial