Opinion
CIV-23-106-F
02-08-2023
DAVID SAMUEL CRENWELGE, Plaintiff, v. FIFTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, Defendant.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
AMANDA MAXFIELD GREEN, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis (without prepayment of fees), has filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 1). The matter was referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge for initial proceedings consistent with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), (C). (Doc. 5). The undersigned has reviewed the Complaint (Doc. 1) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). As explained fully below, it is recommended that the Court DISMISS the Complaint in its entirety.
I. Overview of Complaint
Plaintiff brings his claims against one Defendant, the “Fifth Judicial District of the State of Oklahoma.” (Doc. 1, at 2). The undersigned takes judicial notice that the address provided for this Defendant is the address of the Stephens County District Court and analyzes the Complaint accordingly. (Id.); see Fed.R.Evid. 201(b); see also United States v. Piggie, 622 F.2d 486, 488 (10th Cir. 1980) (“Geography has long been peculiarly susceptible to judicial notice for the obvious reason that geographic locations are facts which are not generally controversial....”). Plaintiff alleges that he requested “pro-se protection due to the inability to pay to file document[s] or pay for an attorney” in Stephens County District Court Case No. PB-2022-125.(Id. at 4-5). Plaintiff states that, although he properly applied for pro se status, his request “was denied by Judge G. Brent Russell.” (Id. at 4). Plaintiff claims that “the Court will not respond [and] by doing so [Plaintiff's] civil rights are being violated.” (Id. at 5). Plaintiff seeks $10,000 in damages. (Id. at 4).
https://www.oscn.net/dockets/GetCaseInformation.aspx?db'stephens&number=PB-2022-00125 (Docket Sheet) (last visited February 7, 2023). The undersigned takes judicial notice of the docket sheet and related documents in this probate matter. See United States v. Pursley, 577 F.3d 1204, 1214 n.6 (10th Cir. 2009) (exercising discretion “to take judicial notice of publicly-filed records in [this] court and certain other courts concerning matters that bear directly upon the disposition of the case at hand”) (citation omitted).
II. The Court's Duty to Screen Prisoner Complaints
Federal law mandates the screening of each complaint in a civil action filed by a prisoner seeking redress from a governmental entity or an officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court must dismiss a complaint or any portion of it that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. Id.
The court's review of a complaint under § 1915A(b)(1) mirrors that required for reviewing a motion to dismiss brought pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The court must accept Plaintiff's allegations as true and construe them, and any reasonable inferences to be drawn from them, in the light most favorable to Plaintiff. See Kay v. Bemis, 500 F.3d 1214, 1217 (10th Cir. 2007). The court “review[s] the complaint for plausibility; that is, to determine whether the complaint includes enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Young v. Davis, 554 F.3d 1254, 1256 (10th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). A complaint fails to state such a claim when it lacks factual allegations sufficient “to raise a right to relief above the speculative level on the assumption that all the allegations in the complaint are true (even if doubtful in fact).” Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (footnote and citation omitted). Bare legal conclusions in a complaint, however, are not assumed to be true; legal conclusions “must be supported by factual allegations” to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009).
“[A] pro se plaintiff requires no special legal training to recount the facts surrounding his alleged injury, and he must provide such facts if the court is to determine whether he makes out a claim on which relief can be granted.” Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991); see also Whitney v. New Mexico, 113 F.3d 1170, 1173-74 (10th Cir. 1997) (noting that although courts construe pro se pleadings liberally, courts “will not supply additional factual allegations to round out a plaintiff's complaint”). Whether a complaint contains sufficient facts to avoid dismissal is context-specific and is determined through a court's application of “judicial experience and common sense.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679; see also Gee v. Pacheco, 627 F.3d 1178, 1184-85 (10th Cir. 2010) (discussing Iqbal). “A pro se litigant's pleadings are to be construed liberally and held to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Hall, 935 F.2d at 1110.
The court, however, may not serve as Plaintiff's advocate, creating arguments on his behalf. See Yang v. Archuleta, 525 F.3d 925, 927 n.1 (10th Cir. 2008).
III. The Eleventh Amendment Bars Plaintiff's Claims Against The Stephens County District Court.
“The Eleventh Amendment ordinarily grants a state immunity from suits brought in federal court by its own citizens or those of another state. The immunity extends to arms of the state.” Large v. Oklahoma, 578 Fed.Appx. 752, 753-54 (10th Cir. 2014) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). There are three exceptions to Eleventh Amendment immunity: (1) “a state may consent to suit in federal court;” (2) “Congress may abrogate a state's sovereign immunity by appropriate legislation;” and (3) “the complaint alleges an ongoing violation of federal law and the plaintiff seeks prospective relief.” Muscogee (Creek) Nation v. Pruitt, 669 F.3d 1159, 1166 (10th Cir. 2012). Oklahoma has not consented to be sued in federal court, and Congress has not abrogated state sovereign immunity by creating a private right of action under § 1983. Berry v. Oklahoma, 495 Fed.Appx. 920, 921-22 (10th Cir. 2012) (citing Okla. Stat. tit. 51, § 152.1); Will v. Mich. Dep't of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 66 (1989).
Plaintiff has named the Stephens County District Court as a defendant in this action. (Doc. 1, at 2, 4). In Oklahoma, state district courts operate as arms of the State. See Okla. Const. art. 7, § 7; see also Edwards v. Whetsel, No. CIV-08-134-F, 2009 WL 368487, at *4 (W.D. Okla. Feb.13, 2009) (unpublished order) (“[D]istrict courts in the State of Oklahoma operate as arms of the State.”). As a consequence, the Eleventh Amendment bars Plaintiff's claims against the Stephens County District Court. See Edwards, 2009 WL 368487, at *4 (observing that “Plaintiff's claims against the District Court of Oklahoma County are, in essence, claims against the State of Oklahoma[,]” and holding that because the State did not waive its Eleventh Amendment immunity, “Plaintiff's § 1983 claim for damages against the District Court of Oklahoma County is barred”).
To the extent that Plaintiff's claim could be construed as a claim against Stephens County Judge G. Brent Russell, such a claim would be barred by the doctrine of absolute judicial immunity. “[A] judicial officer is entitled to absolute immunity from a claim for damages under § 1983 unless he has acted ‘in the clear absence of all jurisdiction.'” Ledbetter v. City of Topeka, 318 F.3d 1183, 1189 (10th Cir. 2003). Plaintiff does not allege any facts suggesting that Judge Russell acted “in the clear absence of all jurisdiction.” See Edwards, 2009 WL 368487, at *4.
Because Plaintiff's claims against the Stephens County District Court are barred by the Eleventh Amendment, the undersigned recommends that the Complaint be dismissed without prejudice. Rural Water Sewer & Solid Waste Mgmt., Dist. No. 1, Logan Cnty., Oklahoma v. City of Guthrie, 654 F.3d 1058, 1069 n.9 (10th Cir. 2011) (“[A] dismissal on sovereign immunity grounds . . . must be without prejudice.”).
IV. Recommendation and Notice of Right to Object
In accordance with the foregoing analysis, the undersigned recommends that the Court DISMISS the Complaint (Doc. 1) without prejudice.
The undersigned advises Plaintiff of his right to file an objection to this Report and Recommendation with the Clerk of Court on or before March 1, 2023, under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2). The undersigned further advises Plaintiff that failure to file a timely objection to this Report and Recommendation waives his right to appellate review of both factual and legal issues contained herein. Moore v. United States, 950 F.2d 656, 659 (10th Cir. 1991).
This Report and Recommendation disposes of all issues referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge and terminates the referral unless and until the matter is re-referred.