Strege v. Smithfield Ham et al, No. 3:2023cv03034 - Document 5 (D.S.D. 2024)

Court Description: OPINION and ORDER granting 3 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis and 1915 Screening For Dismissal.. Signed by Chief Judge Roberto A. Lange on 05/01/2024. cc: sent to Adam Strege via USPS. (KLE)

Download PDF

Strege v. Smithfield Ham et al Doc. 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA CENTRAL DIVISION ADAM STREGE, 3:23-CV-03034-RAL Plaintiff, OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND vs. 1915 SCREENING FOR DISMISSAL SMITHFIELD HAM;XCEL ENERGY; CRAIG SCHAUNAMAN, in his individual and official capacities; MAYOR TRAVIS SCHAUNAMAN, Mayor of Aberdeen in his individual and ofSeial capacities; HURON, SD SOCIAL SECURITY OFFICE DIRECTORS, in there individual and official capacities; LLOYD LINKE, Western Area Power Administration in his individual and official capacities; WATER TOWN, SD SOCIAL SECURITY OFFICE DIRECTORS,in there individual and official capacities; HOFMANNTRUCKING; DAVE STREGE; and KIMBERLY KAZEMBA, Defendants. Plaintiff Adam Strege filed a pro se lawsuit. Doc. 1. Strege moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Doc. 3. I. Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis A federal court may authorize the commencement of any lawsuit without prepayment of fees when an applicant submits an affidavit stating he or she is imable to pay the costs of the lawsuit. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). "[I]n forma pauperis status does not require a litigant to demonstrate absolute destitution." Lee v. McDonald's Corp., 231 F.3d 456, 459 (8th Cir. 2000). But in forma pauperis status is a privilege, not a right. Williams v. McKenzie, 834 F.2d 152, 154 (8th Cir. 1987). Determining whether an applicant is sufficiently impoverished to qualify to Dockets.Justia.com proceed in forma pauperis under § 1915 is committed to the sound discretion ofthe district court. Cross V. Gen. Motors Corp., 721 F.2d 1152, 1157 (8th Cir. 1983). After review of Strege's financial affidavit,the Court finds that he has insufficient funds to pay the filing fee. Thus,Strege's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Doe. 3, is granted. II. 1915 Screening A court when sereening under § 1915 must assume as true all faets well pleaded in the complaint. Est. of Rosenberg v. Crandell. 56 F.3d 35, 36 (8th Cir. 1995). Pro se and civil rights complaints must be liberally eonstrued. Erickson v. Pardus. 551 U.S. 89, 94(2007)(per curiam) (eitation omitted); Bediako v. Stein Mart.Ine.. 354 F.3d 835,839(8th Cir. 2004)(citation omitted). Even with this eonstruetion, "a pro se eomplaint must eontain speeific faets supporting its eonelusions." Martin v. Sargent. 780 F.2d 1334, 1337(8th Cir. 1985)(eitation omitted); see also Ellis V. City ofMinneapolis. 518 F. App'x 502,504(8th Cir. 2013)(per curiam)(citation omitted). Civil rights complaints cannot be merely conclusoiy. Davis v. Hall, 992 F.2d 151, 152 (8th Cir. 1993)(per euriam)(citation omitted); Parker v. Porter. 221 F. App'x 481,482(8th Cir. 2007)(per curiam)(citations omitted). A eomplaint "does not need detailed factual allegations ...[but] requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation ofthe elements ofa cause of aetion will not do[.]" Bell Atl. Corp. V. Twomblv. 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)(internal citation omitted). If a complaint does not contain these bare essentials, dismissal is appropriate. S^ Beavers v. Lockhart. 755 F.2d 657, 663-64 (8th Cir. 1985). Twomblv requires that a eomplaint's "[f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a right to reliefabove the speculative level on the assumption that all the allegations in the eomplaint are true[.]" 550 U.S. at 555 (internal citation omitted); see also Abdullah v. Minnesota. 261 F. App'x 926, 927 (8th Cir. 2008)(per euriam)(noting that a complaint "must contain either direct or inferential allegations respecting all material elements necessary to sustain 2 recovery under some viable legal theory" (citing Twomblv., 550 U.S. at 553-63)). Further, "a well-pleaded complaint may proceed even if it strikes a savvy judge that actual proof ofthe facts alleged is improbable, and that a recovery is very remote and unlikely." Braden v. Wal-Mart Stores. Inc.. 588 F.3d 585, 594 (8th Cir. 2009)(intemal quotation omitted)(quoting Twomblv. 550 U.S. at 556). When a district court determines a plaintiff is financially eligible to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), the court must then determine whether the complaint should be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Martin-Trigona v. Stewart. 691 F.2d 856,857(8th Cir. 1982); see also Kev v. Does. 217 F. Supp. 3d 1006, 1007(E.D. Ark. 2016). The court must dismiss claims if they "(i)[are] frivolous or malicious; (ii) fail[]to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seek[ ] monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Strege's pro se lawsuit cannot survive screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 because it fails to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Strege's complaint repeatedly mentions the launch of nuclear missiles and bombs as well as the collapse of the World Trade Center. See generallv Doc. 1. He claims that he worked as ajourneyman carpenter, and a year later the Social Security Administration(SSA)determined that he could never work again. Id. at 11. He alleges that the SSA fabricated evidence to falsely arrest him and that he was falsely arrested by the Federal Bureau of Investigations in Puerto Rico. Ifr at 11-12. Strege's claims are difficult to follow or understand, fail to state viable claims for relief and thus are subject to dismissal on screening. Denton v. Hernandez. 504 U.S. 25, 32(1992). Strege alleges a First Amendment retaliation claim because of a conspiracy to put a billion taxpayers' body parts and bodily fluids in hamburger meat and sub sandwiches. Doc. 1 at 2, 5. He requests that this Court order the defendants to stop putting human taxpayers' body parts and bodily fluids in nuclear fuel. Id. at 2, 9. To allege a First Amendment retaliation claim, a plaintiff must"show(1)he engaged in a protected activity,(2)the government official took adverse action against him that would chill a person of ordinary firmness from continuing in the activity, and(3) the adverse action was motivated at least in part by the exercise ofthe protected activity." Spencer V. Jackson Cntv.. 738 F.3d 907, 911 (8th Cir. 2013)(quoting Revels v. Vincenz, 382 F.3d 870, 876 (8th Cir. 2004)). Strege does not allege that he engaged in a protected activity, that a government official took action that would chill a person of ordinary firmness from continuing in a protected activity, or that an adverse action was partly motivated by exercise of a protected activity. generallv Doc. 1. Thus, Strege's First Amendment retaliation claim is dismissed without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Strege alleges that Xcel Energy, Hofmanntrucking, Smithfield Ham, Craig Schaimaman, Travis Schaunaman, South Dakota Social Security Directors, Lloyd Linke, Dave Strege, and Kimberly Kazemba violate genocide laws,and he specifically cites to 18U.S.C. § 1091,42 U.S.C. § 1346(b), 28 U.S.C. §§ 2671 through 2680, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 42 U.S.C. § 1985, 42 U.S.C. § 1986, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1331(a) through 1334, 42 U.S.C. §§2000bb-4 and 2000cc-2(a), the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act(RICO),42 U.S.C. § 1962(d), and the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments. Doc. 1 at 2. Although Strege cites to a variety of laws, he does not explain how the laws apply to his situation or what actions the defendants allegedly took in violation of the laws. Simply referencing a variety of laws without describing their application does not state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Thus, the Court dismisses Strege's complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). III. Conclusion Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Strega's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, Doc.3,is granted. It is further ORDERED that Strege's complaint is dismissed without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). DATED this day of May,2024. BY THE COURT: ROBERTO A. LANGE CHIEF JUDGE

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.