West v. Jackson

          ORDER

          TIMOTH L. BROOKS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Plaintiff proceeds in this matter pro se and seeks to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP") pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 3). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the Court has the obligation to screen any complaint in which an individual has sought leave to proceed IFP.

         I. BACKGROUND

         Plaintiff filed her Complaint on August 7, 2019. (Doc. 2). Plaintiff brings her complaint in both this and her underlying state court case as a "sovereign citizen." Id. at 9, 21-22, 25.

         Plaintiff alleges that on March 30, 2018, Judge Charles Scott Jackson wrote a minute order "not permitting Plaintiff to file further documents" in her state case without prior court approval. Id. at 5. Plaintiff attached a copy of her complaint in the state court case, in which she sued the Carroll County Road Department because she was walking along CR 906 when she stepped to one side because she heard a vehicle approaching and then fell approximately 15 feet and was injured. Id. at 15-21. Plaintiff attached a copy of the order issued by Judge Jackson, which stated:

This Court dismissed plaintiffs complaint by Court order dated 1-27-17. Plaintiffs motion for reconsideration was denied on 7-21-17. Since that date, plaintiff continues to file documents herein, including a writ of garnishment, stating she has a $2, 000, 000 judgment against the County. This could be confusing to persons presented with this document.

Therefore, plaintiff shall not be permitted to file any further documents in this case without Court approval.

Id. at 33. Plaintiff alleges she was harmed by this order because she could not file a writ of error rescinding the minute order. Id. at 5. She further alleges this delayed her case and denied her due process rights. Id. Plaintiff cites 18 U.S.C. § 242 as the basis for federal question jurisdiction. Id. at 4.

         Plaintiff seeks declaratory and punitive damages. She does not indicate if she proceeds against Defendants in their official capacity, personal capacity, or both.

         II. LEGAL STANDARD

         Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the Court is obligated to screen the case prior to service of process being issued. The Court must dismiss a complaint, or any portion of it, if it contains claims that: (1) are frivolous, malicious, or fail 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(b).

         A claim is frivolous if "it lacks an arguable basis either in law or fact." Neltzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). A claim fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted if it does not allege "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." BellAtl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). "In evaluating whether a pro se plaintiff has asserted sufficient facts to state a claim, we hold 'a pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded ... to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.'" Jackson v. Nixon, 747 F.3d 537, 541 (8th Cir. 2014) (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007)). Even a pro se Plaintiff must allege specific facts sufficient to support a claim. Martin v. Sargent, 780 F.2d 1334, 1337 (8th Cir. 1985).

         III. DISCUSSION

         A. Circuit Judge ...