Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Sanders v. FCI McDowell

United States District Court, D. New Mexico

September 6, 2018

CHRISTOPHER SANDERS, Plaintiff,
v.
FCI MCDOWELL IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL

         THIS MATTER is before the Court sua sponte under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(2) and (6) on the Complaint filed by Plaintiff Christopher Sanders on June 14, 2018 (Doc. 1). The Court will dismiss this case on the grounds that the Court lacks jurisdiction over the Defendant and claims, and the Complaint is frivolous, malicious, and fails to state a claim for relief.

         Plaintiff Christopher Sanders is a prisoner incarcerated at FCI McKean in Bradford, Pennsylvania. (Doc. 1 at 1, 5). The allegations of the Complaint indicate that Plaintiff Sanders was previously incarcerated at FCI McDowell in West Virginia and FCI Butner in North Carolina. (Doc. 1 at 1, 4). The averments in the Complaint are largely unintelligible, but appear to assert federal civil rights claims for vague, unspecified due process and 8th Amendment violations, as well as state-law claims for fraud and negligence. (Doc. 1 at 2, ¶ III). The relief requested in Sanders Complaint is for “a recommendation not only to Philadelphia, PA 19106 court room 2609 Arelan Fisk in Judge Sanchez, but also to are lasted President of the United States [Mr. B. Obama for a attorney, lawyer] so one to heal me with my legal claims.” (Doc. 1 at 3).

         The Complaint claims Sanders was “told to take my tort claim to the this [sic] District Court Pete V. Domenic [sic] United States Court House” (Doc. 1 at 3) but does not allege any conduct by any identified individual occurring in or connected to New Mexico. Sanders asserts that he has sent previous filings to this Court (Doc. 1 at 2), but the Court has no record of any prior civil or criminal filings or proceedings involving Christopher Sanders. The Court's research does indicate that Sanders has filed civil cases in other federal districts, and at least some of the cases in other districts have been dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. See Christopher Sanders v. United States, No. CV 17-3593 KAM (S.D.N.Y.); Christopher Sanders v. United States, No. CV 17-1110 (S.D. TX.) (dismissed as frivolous); Sanders v. United States, No. CV 17-4197 RMB (D.N.J.) (dismissed for lack of jurisdiction); Christopher Sanders v. United States, No. CV 17-228 JL (D.N.H.); and Christopher Sanders v. John C. Green, et al., No. CV 14-1493-J-34 PDB (M.D. Fla.).

         I. Plaintiff's Complaint will be Dismissed Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b):

         Plaintiff Sanders is proceeding pro se. The Court has the discretion to dismiss a pro se complaint sua sponte under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) if the Court determines that the complaint is frivolous, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. The Court determines that Sander's Complaint should be dismissed for § 1915A(b) reasons.

         The Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), Section 1915A provides:

(a) Screening.-The court shall review, before docketing, if feasible or, in any event, as soon as practicable after docketing, a complaint in a civil action in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity.
(b) Grounds for dismissal.-On review, the court shall identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint-
(1) is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or
(2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.

28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a) and (b). The PLRA clearly authorizes dismissal of civil lawsuits against governmental entities, officers, or employees upon screening regardless of the prisoner litigant's fee status. Plunk v. Givens, 234 F.3d 1128, 1129 (10th Cir. 2000).

         The Court may also dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(2) and for lack of personal jurisdiction. Moreover, under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) the Court must accept all well-pled factual allegations, but not conclusory, unsupported allegations, and may not consider matters outside the pleading. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007); Dunn v. White, 880 F.2d 1188, 1190 (10th Cir. 1989). The court may dismiss a complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim if “it is ‘patently obvious' that the plaintiff could not prevail on the facts alleged.” Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1109 (10th Cir. 1991) (quoting McKinney v. Oklahoma Dep't of Human Services, 925 F.2d 363, 365 (10th Cir. 1991)). A plaintiff must allege “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. A claim should be dismissed where it is legally or factually insufficient to state a plausible claim for relief. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570.

         In reviewing a pro se complaint, the Court liberally construes the factual allegations. See Northington v. Jackson, 973 F.2d 1518, 1520-21 (10th Cir. 1992). However, a pro se plaintiff's pleadings are judged by the same legal standards that apply to all litigants and a pro se plaintiff must abide by the applicable rules of court. Ogden v. San Juan County, 32 F.3d 452, 455 (10thCir. 1994). The Court is not obligated to craft legal theories for the plaintiff or to supply factual allegations to support the plaintiff's claims. Nor may the Court assume the role of advocate for the pro se litigant. Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d at 1110.

         In deciding whether to dismiss the complaint, in whole or in part, the Court is to consider whether to allow plaintiff an opportunity to amend the complaint. Pro se plaintiffs should be given a reasonable opportunity to remedy defects in their pleadings. Reynoldson v. Shillinger,907 F.2d 124, 126 (10th Cir. 1990). The opportunity to amend should be granted unless the amendment would be futile. Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d at 1109. An amendment is futile if the amended claims would also ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.