Lightfeather v. Osborn

AUSTIN EDWARD LIGHTFEATHER, Plaintiff, v. ABBY OSBORN, et al., Defendants.

4:20CV3118

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

March 8, 2021

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Plaintiff, a state prisoner, filed his Complaint on October 7, 2020. (Filing 1.) Plaintiff was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis on November 16 2020. (Filing 6.) Plaintiff paid the required initial partial filing fee of $0.85 on December 21, 2020. The court conducted an initial review of Plaintiff's Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A, and, in a Memorandum and Order entered on January 12, 2021 (Filing 43), determined it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. On its own motion, however, the court gave Plaintiff 30 days to file an amended complaint.

An amended complaint was received by the clerk of the court on January 19, 2021, and was erroneously docketed as a new case, Case No. 8:21CV20. The error occurred because Plaintiff did not designate the filing as an amended complaint or include a case number on the pleading. The error was discovered and corrected the next day, and the pleading was refiled in this case, No. 4:20CV3118, and docketed as Plaintiff's Amended Complaint (Filing 45). Case No. 8:21CV20 was then closed.

On February 24, 2021, the clerk of the court received another pleading from Plaintiff, which was also docketed herein as an amended complaint (Filing 63). This pleading includes many of the 97 defendants named in Plaintiff's original Complaint (Filing 1), all 8 of the defendants named in Plaintiff's Amended Complaint (Filing 45), plus a slew of new defendants. The court will order that Filing 63 be stricken as improvidently filed.

Plaintiff evidently is under the misapprehension that his Amended Complaint (Filing 45) was deemed "abandoned" when Case No. 8:21CV20 was closed. (See Filing 63, pp. 24, 29). The court will now conduct its initial review of the Amended Complaint (Filing 45), which was filed in a timely manner with leave of court. No consideration will be given to Filing 63, however, because it was an unauthorized filing which does no comport not with the court's previous Memorandum and Order. See, e.g., Emrit v. Gale, No. 4:17CV3133, 2018 WL 618414, at *1 (D. Neb. Jan. 29, 2018) (striking amended pleadings filed by IFP plaintiff without the court's permission).

I. SUMMARY OF AMENDED COMPLAINT

Plaintiff's Amended Complaint (Filing 45) is a recounting of several events in his life, dating back over 20 years. Plaintiff alleges:

1. In 2009, Defendant Lincoln Police Department (LPD) and Plaintiff's adoptive family, the Bowers (Defendants Drue L. Bower, Pierce L. Bower, Dustin H. Bower, Justin R. Bower, and Brenda Stinson (formerly Bower)), "set up" Plaintiff for a robbery conviction, for which he served 6 year in prison.

2. Following his release from prison in 2014, LPD continued to harass and "target" Plaintiff, and his "adopted sister 2^nd cousin [Defendant] Drue L. Bower started threatening to have [Plaintiff's] head cut off, while she would flip [him] off in front of her mother [Defendant] Brenda [Stinson] who wouldn't correct her behavior." These events caused Plaintiff to move to Oregon.

3. Developmental disability service providers in Oregon would yell at Plaintiff after visits by his adoptive mother, Brenda Stinson.

4. When Plaintiff returned to Omaha in January 2016, Brenda Stinson had police pick him up at the airport and take him to Immanuel Health. He was then civilly committed to Defendant Lincoln Regional Center (LRC).

5. While at LRC for one year, Plaintiff was tortured, medicated, verbally and physically abused by staff, and racially targeted for being Native American.

6. After being released for outpatient treatment in January 2017, Plaintiff hired Defendant Abby Osborn as an attorney, but she dismissed a case without Plaintiff's permission in August 2018.

7. After Plaintiff published a book on autism, he was again targeted by LPD in 2017 and 2018, so he moved from Lincoln to Omaha.

8. Brenda Stinson took Plaintiff to LRHC Lasting Hope Recovery in December 2018.

9. Plaintiff was in the Douglas County jail in Omaha from late December 2018 until April 2019, after which he moved to Washington, D.C.

10. Plaintiff returned to Lincoln in May 2019, where he was awarded developmental disability services. Plaintiff's claimed his service provider raped him and made a video which was sold to a pornography dealer, but Brenda Stinson acted as if Plaintiff were delusional, and LPD "refused to take the case."

11. Plaintiff was then placed into the Autism Center Network of Nebraska, and Plaintiff was "targeted" by another service provider and detained at his residence by LPD without probable cause.

12. Brenda Stinson posted bond to obtain Plaintiff's release from jail the next day, and then had him transported to the Beatrice State Developmental Center (BSDC). Plaintiff claims he was physically assaulted by 15 BSCD staff members in February 2020, and was then placed in the Gage County jail by Beatrice police. Following Plaintiff's release from jail, where he staged a hunger strike, Brenda Stinson took him to a hospital for medical treatment. Plaintiff was then homeless.

13. On July 2, 2020, LPD wrongfully arrested Plaintiff for a "staged assault" on Brenda Stinson. Plaintiff alleges he was detained without a warrant and searched without his permission.

14. Finally, Plaintiff complains that his court-appointed attorney refused to move for dismissal of criminal charges associated with the alleged assault, and has been attempting to have Plaintiff found incompetent to stand trial.

For relief, Plaintiff requests that he be released from jail in Lancaster County and that the criminal charges be dismissed. He also requests the dismissal of 2 criminal cases in Gage County. Plaintiff wants Defendants arrested and to have his developmental disability services reinstated. He also want $25 million in damages.

II. STANDARDS ON INITIAL REVIEW

The court is required to conduct an initial review of "a complaint in a civil action in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer oremployee of a governmental entity." 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915A(a). On such initial review, the court must dismiss the complaint if it: "(1) is 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.A. § 1915A(b). See also 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (requiring dismissal of in forma pauperis complaints "at any time" on the same grounds as § 1915A(b)).

"The essential function of a complaint under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is to give the opposing party 'fair notice of the nature and basis or grounds for a claim, and a general indication of the type of litigation involved.'" Topchian v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 760 F.3d 843, 848 (8th Cir. 2014) (quoting Hopkins v. Saunders, 199 F.3d 968, 973 (8th Cir. 1999)). Plaintiffs must set forth enough factual allegations to "nudge[ ] their claims across the line from conceivable to plausible," or "their complaint must be dismissed." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 569-70 (2007); see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) ("A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.").

"A pro se complaint must be liberally construed, and pro se litigants are held to a lesser pleading standard than other parties." Topchian, 760 F.3d at 849 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). This means that "if the essence of an allegation is discernible, even though it is not pleaded with legal nicety, then the district court should construe the complaint in a way that permits the layperson's claim to be considered within the proper legal framework." Stone v. Harry, 364 F.3d 912, 915 (8th Cir. 2004). However, even pro se complaints are required to allege facts which, if true, state a claim for relief as a matter of law. Martin v. Aubuchon, 623 F.2d 1282, 1286 (8th Cir. 1980).

III. ANALYSIS OF AMENDED COMPLAINT

As the court carefully explained in its previous Memorandum and Order, a plaintiff may join multiple defendants in a single action only if he asserts at least oneclaim to relief against each of the defendants that arises out of the same transaction or occurrence and presents questions of law or fact common to all. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2). Even though Plaintiff has reduced the number of Defendants from 97 down to 8, his Amended Complaint still fails to meet this test.¹

The eight Defendants named in Plaintiff's Amended Complaint are: (1) Brenda Stinson, who is mentioned in connection with transactions or occurrences described in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 10, 12, and 13 above; (2) Pierce L. Bower, (3) Dustin H. Bower, and (4) Justin R. Bower, all three of whom are mentioned only in connection with transactions or occurrences described in paragraph 1 above; (5) Drue L. Bower, who is mentioned in connection with transactions or occurrences described in paragraphs 1 and 2 above; (6) Abby Osborn, who is mentioned only in connection with transactions or occurrences described in paragraph 6 above; (7) the Lincoln Regional Center, which is mentioned in connection with transactions or occurrences described in paragraphs 4 and 5 above; and (8) the Lincoln Police Department, which is mentioned in connection with transactions or occurrences described in paragraphs 1, 2, 7, 10, 11, and 13. None of these named Defendants are alleged to have any connection to the transactions or occurrences that are described in paragraphs 9 and 14 above.

To cure a misjoinder of parties, "the court may at any time, on just terms, add or drop a party. The court may also sever any claim against a party." Fed. R. Civ. P. 21. Dropping a party is self-explanatory. Severance under Rule 21 creates separate actions or...