Hall v. United States

1

VIRGIL HALL, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al, Defendants.

No. 2:22-cv-00182

United States District Court, D. Utah, Central Division

April 12, 2023

Howard C. Nielson., Jr., District Judge

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS ACTION PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915

Daphne A. Oberg United States Magistrate Judge

Pro se plaintiff Virgil Hall, proceeding in forma pauperis filed this action against various governmental and correctional entities in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.^[1]After screening Mr Hall's complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and identifying deficiencies, a district judge from the Eastern District of Missouri ordered Mr. Hall to file an amended complaint.^[2] Mr. Hall did so.^[3]Upon review under 28 U.S.C § 1915(e)(2)(B), it is evident Mr. Hall's amended complaint fails to state a plausible claim for relief and further opportunities to amend would be futile. Accordingly the undersigned^[4] recommends the district judge dismiss this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

BACKGROUND

On November 3, 2010, Mr. Hall was pulled over and arrested in Cedar City, Utah when drugs were found in the spare tire of the vehicle he was traveling in.^[5]All state court charges against Mr. Hall were dismissed due to the filing of federal charges.^[6]On June 9, 2011, Mr. Hall was convicted in federal court by a jury on a single count of possession with intent to distribute cocaine.^[7] The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed Mr. Hall's conviction on January 25, 2013.^[8]The Supreme Court denied his petition for writ of certiorari on June 17, 2013.^[9]Since then, Mr. Hall has made various attempts to appeal his conviction, all of which have been denied.^[10]

This action reflects Mr. Hall's latest attempt at relief. Mr. Hall filed the instant action on September 20, 2021, in the Eastern District of Missouri, asserting claims against the United States of America, the State of Utah, Washington County Purgatory Correctional Facility, Davis County Jail, Iron County Jail, and the Department of Justice-under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)^[11]and Privacy Act^[12].^[13]After the court identified deficiencies in Mr. Hall's complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), Mr. Hall was ordered to file an amended complaint.^[14]Mr. Hall filed an amended complaint on March 3, 2022.^[15]A few weeks later, his case was transferred to the District of Utah.^[16]

Mr. Hall submitted his amended complaint on a court form for prisoner civil rights complaints brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.^[17]Mr. Hall's amended complaint contains no Privacy Act claims and makes only vague references to FOIA.^[18]The caption of the amended complaint names the United States of America, the State of Utah, Washington County Correctional Facility, Davis County Jail, Iron County Jail, and the Department of Justice as defendants.^[19]However, when directed to list all defendants in the body of the form complaint, Mr. Hall lists only Paul Kohler, C. Aldred, K. Larson, Davis County Jail, and Iron County Jail.^[20]Mr. Hall seeks a new trial, $10,000 for every day he was allegedly wrongfully incarcerated, and $50,000,000 in punitive damages.^[21]

LEGAL STANDARDS

Whenever a court authorizes a party to proceed in forma pauperis, the court must dismiss the case if it determines the complaint “fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted.”^[22]In determining whether a complaint fails to state a claim for relief under section 1915, the court employs the standard for analyzing a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.^[23]To avoid dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6), a complaint must allege “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”^[24] The court accepts well-pleaded factual allegations as true and views the allegations in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, drawing all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff's favor.^[25]But the court need not accept the plaintiff's conclusory allegations as true.^[26]“[A] plaintiff must offer specific factual allegations to support each claim.”^[27]

Because Mr. Hall proceeds pro se, his filings are liberally construed and held “to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.”^[28]Still, pro se plaintiffs must “follow the same rules of procedure that govern other litigants.”^[29]For instance, a pro se plaintiff “still has the burden of alleging sufficient facts on which a recognized legal claim could be based.”^[30]While the court must make some allowances for a pro se plaintiff's “failure to cite proper legal authority, his confusion of various legal theories, his poor syntax and sentence construction, or his unfamiliarity with pleading requirements,”^[31]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.”^[32]

ANALYSIS

Mr Hall's amended complaint indicates he is attempting to bring a section 1983 claim against various defendants.^[33]Mr. Hall alleges he was “illegally held,” “never had a[n] arraignment,” was subject to “malicious prosecution resulting in wrongful incarceration, mental stress, constitutional violation [of the] 4th Amendment[,] 5th Amendment[,] and 6th Amendment, time away from family and friends, a divorce of marriage and illegal seizure of [his] body and property,” all as a result of his November 3, 2010 arrest and subsequent proceedings against him.^[34]

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, “a plaintiff must allege (1) deprivation of a federal right by (2) a person acting under color of state law.”^[35]The plaintiff must “identify specific actions taken by particular defendants” in violation of his rights.^[36]The sufficiency of Mr. Hall's section 1983 claims with respect to each defendant are discussed below.

1. The United States of America, the State of Utah, Washington County Correctional Facility, and the Department of Justice

To the extent Mr. Hall's amended complaint seeks to state a section 1983 claim against the United States of America, the State of Utah, Washington County Correctional Facility, or the Department of Justice, he fails to state a plausible claim. Mr. Hall does nothing beyond name the United States, the State of Utah, and Washington County Correctional Facility as defendants. He fails to identify any specific actions taken by these defendants; he offers no factual allegations against them at all. Accordingly, Mr. Hall fails to state a cognizable section 1983 against any of these defendants.

As for the Department of Justice, Mr. Hall asserts the Department of Justice Executive Office for the United States Attorneys claims “they have no records after the Freedom of Information Act to show how [he] was convicted.”^[37]This constitutes the entirety of allegations made against the Department of Justice. Where Mr. Hall fails to identify specific actions taken by the Department of Justice in violation of his rights, this is insufficient to support a section 1983 claim. To the extent Mr. Hall attempts to assert the Department of Justice has committed a FOIA violation, his allegation is deficient because it amounts to nothing more than a vague, passing reference to FOIA. “Federal jurisdiction under FOIA is dependent upon a showing that an agency has (1) improperly (2) withheld (3) agency [records].”^[38]Mr. Hall provides no specific factual allegations as to how the Department of Justice has improperly withheld records in violation of FOIA.^[39]Accordingly, Mr. Hall fails to state a cognizable FOIA claim against the Department of Justice.

2. Defendant Paul Kohler

Mr. Hall alleges “U.S. Attorney Paul Kohler fraudulently misrepresented [Mr. Hall] was indicted by a grand jury and falsified the evidence (drugs) [during] trial.”^[40]Mr. Hall contends this “[m]ade [him] suffer wrongful incarceration, mental stress, los[s] of time with family and friends d[ue] to malicious prosecution.”^[41]In his amended complaint, Mr. Hall indicates he is suing Mr. Kohler in his individual capacity, but then refers to Mr. Kohler only in his official capacity as an Assistant United States Attorney.^[42]First, as an Assistant United States Attorney, Mr. Kohler was a federal official and, therefore, did not act under color of state law, which bars any section 1983 claim brought against him.^[43]Additionally, Mr. Hall does not allege Mr. Kohler, in his individual capacity, was a state actor or “jointly engaged with state officials in the conduct allegedly violating the federal right,” as required to state a section 1983 claim against private parties.^[44] Accordingly, Mr. Hall has failed to state a cognizable section 1983 claim against Mr. Kohler. Further, Mr. Hall complains of acts constituting “prosecutorial activity”^[45]by Mr. Kohler.^[46]These acts can “fairly be characterized as closely associated with the conduct of litigation,”^[47]making Mr. Kohler is immune from suit for such conduct.^[48]

3. Defendant C. Aldred

To the extent Mr. Hall raises a section 1983 claim against Mr. Aldred, his amended complaint is deficient. The amended complaint states, “[a]nother probable cause warrantless arrest [was] filed 09/07/2011 after Plaintiff allegedly had trial by C. Aldred of the Washington County Corrections.”^[49]This is the only reference to Mr. Aldred throughout the entire amended complaint. This single factual allegation fails to identify specific actions taken Mr. Aldred which violated Mr. Hall's rights and fails to provide Mr. Aldred notice regarding the nature of the claims asserted against him. Accordingly, Mr. Hall fails to state a cognizable section 1983 claim against Mr. Aldred.

4. Defendant K. Larson

...