Stoddard v. LDA Lutherhaven et al, No. 1:2020cv00546 - Document 6 (D. Idaho 2021)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER. Plaintiff's complaint (Dkt 1 ) is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Signed by Judge B. Lynn Winmill. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (alw)

Download PDF

Stoddard v. LDA Lutherhaven et al Doc. 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO DANIEL PAUL STODDARD, Case No. 1:20-cv-00546-BLW Plaintiff, INITIAL REVIEW ORDER BY SCREENING JUDGE v. LDS LUTHERHAVEN and DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND WELFARE, Defendants. The Clerk of Court conditionally filed Plaintiff Complaint because of his status as a prisoner and request to proceed in forma pauperis. (Dkts. 3, 1.) proceed. All prisoner and pauper complaints must be screened by the Court to determine whether summary dismissal is appropriate. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915 & 1915A. The Court must dismiss any claims that are frivolous or malicious, that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant with immunity from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). After reviewing the Complaint, the Court has determined that it is subject to dismissal for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. INITIAL REVIEW ORDER BY SCREENING JUDGE - 1 Dockets.Justia.com BACKGROUND Plaintiff is a prisoner in the custody of the Idaho Department of Correction (IDOC), incarcerated at Idaho State Correctional Institution (ISCI). He alleges that stole blatantly my trustee, Antonette Elizabeth, and I myself [illegible] social order of an IDOC membered JPay contract, to be helped as by this, a bumbed out (verbatim) Id. (verbatim). The remainder of the Complaint is filled with religious terms and symbols, but is nonsensical. REVIEW OF COMPLAINT 1. Standard of Law for Screening Complaints for relief under Rule 8 if the factual assertions in the complaint, taken as true, are Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Plaintiffs are required to state facts, and not just legal theories, in a complaint. See Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009). In Iqbal cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statemen INITIAL REVIEW ORDER BY SCREENING JUDGE - 2 Id. at 678. In defendant-unlawfully-harmed- Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has determined that a See Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2005) (internal citations and allegations that have no basis in law or fact include those that can be See Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32-33 (1992). A pro se litigant bringing a civil rights suit must have an opportunity to amend the complaint to overcome deficiencies unless it is clear that they cannot be overcome by amendment. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2000). A pro se pleading may be dismissed without notice of the deficiencies and an opportunity to amend if a complaint lacks merit entirely and cannot be saved by amendment. Id. at 1129. 2. Discussion colorable cause of action, hidden or overt. Plaintiff has filed other cases filled with indecipherable religious statements, and he has been unable to amend his pleadings to show that his First Amendment right to free exercise of religious potentially has been violated. For example, in Case No. 1:20-cv-00221-BLW, Stoddard v. IDOC Policy Programmers, Plaintiff amended complaint within the allotted time period (Dkt. 24 in that case). INITIAL REVIEW ORDER BY SCREENING JUDGE - 3 The same nonsensical subject matter reigns here, as Plaintiff discusses something about - , dog trainer. Id. at 4. The claims are entirely without merit and cross the line to frivolous, fanciful, and delusional. This Complaint will be summarily dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, because amendment would be futile. Plaintiff is encouraged to review his religious concerns with his prison psychologist, case worker, and/or chaplain and to review any J-Pay or other financial issues with prison financial staff via an inmate concern form, rather than file lawsuits similar to this one. Plaintiff is certainly free to continue to access the courts as a last resort, after exhausting the prison grievance system. Plaintiff is reminded that each lawsuit he files in forma pauperis means that he owes the Court an additional $350.00 for the filing fee, whether or not he is permitted to proceed. Those fees are deducted by prison and sent to the Clerk of Court in incremental amounts whenever , thereby reducing the amount of money he has available to him to use for commissary items. 1 1 Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), prisoners are entitled to begin a civil suit without prepayment 28 U.S.C. 1915(b)(1). provision for return of fees partially paid or for Goins v. Decaro, 241 F.3d 260, 261 (2d Cir. 2001) (rejecting a request for a refund of appellate fees after voluntary withdrawal of appeal). The Second Circuit effect created by liability for filing fee Id. (citing Leonard v. Lacy, 88 F.3d 181, 185 (2d Cir.1996)). INITIAL REVIEW ORDER BY SCREENING JUDGE - 4

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.