Howell v. United States of America, No. 4:2019cv00627 - Document 3 (N.D. Okla. 2019)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER by Judge Claire V Eagan that plaintiff's complaint 2 is dismissed without prejudice ; finding as moot 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (Re: 1 Complaint ) (RGG, Chambers)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Howell v. United States of America Doc. 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA MARC DEWAYNE HOWELL, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 19-CV-0627-CVE-FHM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff has filed a complaint (Dkt. # 1) and he requests leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. # 2). Plaintiff states that he has had at least 20 prior cases “erroneously and unconstitutionally dismissed” and he claims that this violates his constitutional rights. Dkt. # 1, at 1. He states that he “was deserving of better adjudication than [he] experienced,” and he seeks more that $600 million in damages. Id. at 2. Plaintiff seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1915 are applicable. See Lister v. Dep’t of Treasury, 408 F.3d 1309 (10th Cir. 2005). Section 1915(e)(2) requires a district court to dismiss a case if at any time the court determines that “the action . . .(i) is frivolous or malicious [or] (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted.” A court reviewing a pro se plaintiff’s complaint must broadly construe the allegations of the complaint to determine if the plaintiff can state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). The generous construction to be given a pro se litigant’s allegations “does not relieve the plaintiff of the burden of alleging sufficient facts on which a recognized legal claim could be based.” Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 Dockets.Justia.com (10th Cir. 1991). Notwithstanding a pro se plaintiff’s various mistakes or misunderstandings of legal doctrines or procedural requirements, “if a court can reasonably read the pleadings to state a valid claim on which the plaintiff could prevail, it should do so . . . .” Id. A reviewing court need not accept “mere conclusions characterizing pleaded facts.” Bryson v. City of Edmond, 905 F.2d 1386, 1390 (10th Cir. 1990); see also Bell Atlantic Corp. v.Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (“While a complaint attacked by a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss does not need detailed factual allegations, a plaintiff’s obligation to provide the grounds of [her] entitlement to relief requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.”) (quotation marks and citations omitted). The court “will not supply additional factual allegations to round out a plaintiff’s complaint or construct a legal theory on a plaintiff’s behalf.” Whitney v. New Mexico, 113 F.3d 1170, 1173-74 (10th Cir. 1997). The Court has reviewed plaintiff’s complaint and finds that plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Plaintiff claims that courts have “erroneously and unconstitutionally” dismissed his many prior cases and he seeks over $600 million in damages from the United States of America. However, the dismissal of a case is not by itself a constitutional violation, and a person has no constitutional right to proceed with a meritless case. Plaintiff’s complaint is devoid of any factual allegations that could state a valid procedural due process claim, and the Court does not find that plaintiff’s vague allegations concerning the dismissal of prior cases could potentially state a claim arising federal law. The Court can discern no other possible claim in plaintiff’s complaint and, under § 1915(e)(2), this case should be dismissed due plaintiff’s failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 2 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff’s complaint (Dkt. # 1) is dismissed without prejudice, and plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. # 2) is moot. A separate judgment of dismissal is entered herewith. DATED this 21st day of November, 2019. 3
]]>
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.
