Waliezer v. Howell et al, No. 1:2021cv01027 - Document 19 (D.S.D. 2021)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying as moot 4 Motion to Appoint Counsel ; denying as moot 9 Motion to Amend/Correct. Signed by U.S. District Judge Charles B. Kornmann on 11/22/2021. (SLT) Modified on 11/22/2021 to correct judge (SLT). Modified on 11/22/2021 delivered to Shane D. Waliezer via usps with (SLT).

Download PDF

Waliezer v. Howell et al Doc. 19 FILED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NOV IL 2021 DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA NORTHERN DIVISION SHANE D. WALIEZER, 1:21-CV-01027-CBK Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM OPINION AND vs. ORDER BRAD HOWELL,Sheriff Codington County, professionally and individually; OFFICER JOHN DOE #1, Deputy Sheriff Codington County, professionally and individually; and OFFICER JOHN DOE #2, Deputy Sheriff Codington County, professionally and individually; Defendants. Plaintiff filed a pro se complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff alleges that the John Doe defendants violated his Constitutional rights as a pretrial detainee when they transported him from Washington State to South Dakota on an extradition warrant. Plaintiff claims the defendants drove erratically and in excess of the speed limits. Plaintiff further alleges that John Doe #1 exposed himself to plaintiff on two separate occasions when defendant urinated on the side ofthe Interstate highway. Plaintiff filed an application to proceed informa pauperis without the prepayment offees. I found that plaintiff was subject to the three strikes provision ofthe Prison Litigation Reform Act, U.S.C. § 1915(g) and must pay the filing fee. Plaintiff filed a motion to amend his complaint, a motion to vacate the order denying his application to proceed informa pauperis and, thereafter, a notice of interlocutory appeal, along with a motion to proceed on appeal informa pauperis without the prepayment of the appellate filing fee. His notice of appeal filed before the disposition ofthe motion to vacate had no effect on this Court's jurisdiction to rule upon the motion to vacate. Fed. R. Appl. P. Dockets.Justia.com 4(a)(4) and Griggs v. Provident Consumer Disc. Co.,459 U.S. 56, 61, 103 S. Ct. 400, 403, 74 L. Ed. 2d 225 (1982). The order appealed from has been vacated and plaintiffs application to proceed informa pauperis has been granted. The notice of appeal became effective upon this court's ruling on plaintiffs motion to vacate, Avila v. Sullivan, 46 F.3d 1150(10th Cir. 1995), but the appeal is essentially moot since plaintiff was granted the relief requested. Plaintiff moved to amend his complaint to add an allegation that he is in imminent danger, a requirement for allowing him to proceed informa pauperis notwithstanding the three-strikes bar of28 U.S.C .§ 1915(g). The order allowing plaintiff to proceed informa pauperis renders his motion to amend his complaint moot. The Prison Litigation Reform Act requires the Court to screen prisoner complaints prior to service of process being issued and to dismiss any complaint that is(1)frivolous, malicious, or fails 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). I am required to give the plaintiffs pro se complaint liberal construction and identify any discernable cognizable claim. Solomon v. Petrav, 795 F.3d 111, 787 (8th Cir. 2015). I have conducted an initial review as required by § 1915A. Plaintiffs complaint must be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) because plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The interlocutory appeal, while pending, does not deprive the district court ofjurisdiction over aspects ofthe case not involved in the appeal. Chambers v. Pennvcook,641 F.3d 898,904(8th Cir. 2011). The appeal concerns the application to proceed informa paueris only. Plaintiff alleges that two Codington County deputy sheriffs recklessly endangered plaintiffs life while transporting plaintiff from the State of Washington to the State of South Dakota. Plaintiff also alleges that he was subject to indecent exposure. "To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege the violation of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States, and must show that the alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under color of state law." West v. Atkins. 2 487 U.S. 42, 48, 108 S. Ct. 2250, 2254-55, 101 L. Ed. 2d 40(1988). Plaintiff has failed to allege that defendants' actions violated any federal Constitutional or statutory rights. In fact, at most, plaintiff alleges in his claim for relief that defendants violated law enforcement policies which they should be ordered to review. Plaintiff has failed to state a claim under § 1983. Now,therefore, IT IS ORDERED: 7. Plaintiffs motion. Doc. 9, to amend the complaint is denied as moot. 8. Plaintiffs complaint is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). 9. Plaintiffs motion. Doc. 4, for the appointment of counsel is denied as moot. DATED thi&^^J^ay ofNovember, 2021. BY THE COURT: CHARLES B. KORNMANN United States District 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.