Starr v. Kober

DANIEL PAUL STARR, Plaintiff, v. OFC. KOBER, et al., Defendants.

Case No. CIV-13-700-F

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

October 6, 2015

SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION¹

Plaintiff, appearing pro se and in forma pauperis, brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violations of his constitutional rights. The matter has been referred by United States District Judge Stephen P. Friot for initial proceedings consistent with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and (C).

For the reasons set forth below, it is recommended that Plaintiff's Amended Complaint [Doc. No. 61] be stricken. It is further recommended that Plaintiff's claims raised in the original Complaint [Doc. No. 1] and Supplement [Doc. No. 14-1] be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and § 1915A(b)(1). Finally, it is recommended that the Court decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims brought by Plaintiff.

I. CASE BACKGROUND / PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiff filed his initial Complaint [Doc. No. 1] on July 9, 2013. He also separately moved for injunctive relief. See Motion [Doc. No. 3]. At the time Plaintiff filed his Complaint he was incarcerated at Lawton Correctional Facility (LCF), a private prison located in Lawton,Oklahoma. His request for injunctive relief was later denied. See Order Adopting Report and Recommendation (March 26, 2014) [Doc. No. 69].

On August 21, 2013, Plaintiff filed a Motion [Doc. No. 14] requesting leave to amend his complaint. On December 10, 2013, the Court granted Plaintiff's request. See Order [Doc. No. 41]. But the Court gave specific instructions to Plaintiff regarding any amendment of the Complaint. The Court advised Plaintiff that he would be permitted to amend the Complaint provided he organized and consolidated into one document his many factual assertions and claims. The Court noted that Plaintiff had filed many "variously-titled documents that appear, at least in part, to attempt to add new allegations stemming from events that have occurred both prior to and since Mr. Starr filed his original complaint." See id. at p. 7 (citing [Doc. Nos. 19, 27, 29, 33, 39]); see also id., footnote 3. The Court then instructed Plaintiff as follows:

Mr. Starr is hereby granted leave to file an amended complaint by December 31, 2013. If Mr. Starr chooses to file an amended complaint, it must contain - in one document - all claims and allegations Mr. Starr intends to pursue. The Court will not consider any claims or allegations that are not included in this amended complaint. In other words, this amended complaint will replace Mr. Starr's original complaint (Doc. No. 1) and his previously-filed proposed supplemental pleading (Doc. No. 14-1). Mr. Starr is further advised that this amended complaint will be subject to review by the Court as required by statute. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2), 1915A, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c). Upon review of the amended complaint, the Court may dismiss some or all of Mr. Starr's claims. Id. Furthermore, the Court may sever claims that do not arise out of the same series of occurrences as do Mr. Starr's other claims. Fed. R. Civ. P. 21. The Clerk is directed to mail a copy of a form 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint to Mr. Starr along with a copy of this Order.

See id. at p. 8 (emphasis in original).

Next, on December 31, 2013, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint [Doc. No. 50]. The amended complaint, with attachments, was twenty-seven pages long. But the Court entered an order striking the amended complaint and addressed the ways in which it did not comply with the Court's directives set forth in the December 10, 2013 Order. SeeOrder [Doc. No. 51]. As an example, the Court noted that "instead of including the required supporting facts for his allegations, Mr. Starr simply states 'see original complaint.'" Id. at pp. 1-2 (citing Amended Complaint [Doc. No. 50] at pp. 3, 4). The Court included the following admonishment:

The Court again emphasizes that it will not consider any claims or allegations that are not included in this amended complaint. So that there is no confusion, the Court will repeat its instructions:

• Mr. Starr may file an amended complaint on or before January 21, 2014.

• That amended complaint must contain - in one document - all claims and allegations Mr. Starr intends to pursue against all defendants.

• Claims and allegations that are not in the amended complaint will not be considered by the Court. References to prior documents will be disregarded.

• Persons who are not named as defendants in the amended complaint will not be considered as defendants in the case. If a party was previously mentioned as a subject of one of Mr. Starr's claims, but is not named as a defendant in the amended complaint, the Court will take the omission to mean that Mr. Starr has decided to dismiss that person as a defendant in this case.

See id. at pp. 2-3 (emphasis in original).

After granting Plaintiff additional extensions of time, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint [Doc. No. 61] on February 21, 2014. It is that pleading currently subject to review. At the time Plaintiff filed the Amended Complaint, he continued to be incarcerated at LCF.

Plaintiff then filed an additional document construed by the Court as a further request for injunctive relief. In part, Plaintiff requested a transfer to another facility. See Motion [Doc. No. 64]. The request for injunctive relief was denied. See Order Adopting Report and Recommendation (August 28, 2014) [Doc. No. 88].

On July 31, 2014, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Change of Address [Doc. No. 84], reflecting that he is currently incarcerated at the James Crabtree Correctional Center, a facility run by the Oklahoma Department of Corrections.² Almost immediately following his transfer, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking an extension of time to dismiss certain Defendants. See Motion [Doc. No. 86]. The Court entered an Order on August 13, 2014, giving Plaintiff until September 12, 2014 to "file a notice of dismissal as to any Defendant he seeks to dismiss from this action." See Order [Doc. No. 87] at pp. 1-2. The Court further emphasized that Plaintiff was "not permitted to file an amended complaint or any supplement to his current Amended Complaint without first seeking the Court's permission." Id. at p. 2 (emphasis in original). The September 2014 deadline passed and Plaintiff has taken no further action with respect to dismissal of any claims or defendants.

II. THE AMENDED COMPLAINT SHOULD BE STRICKEN

Plaintiff's Amended Complaint fails to comply with prior directives of the Court. Plaintiff's Amended Complaint includes twenty attachments and is over 180 pages in length. He purports to bring claims identified in three counts as follows: Count I "See: (E) Exhibit-1"; Count II "See: Part 2. (K)"; and Count III "Retaliation/Retaliatory Transfer's [sic] Private PrisonSystem's [sic]". See Amended Complaint at pp. 4-5.³ As supporting facts for each of these claims, Plaintiff only references exhibits attached to the Complaint. These exhibits mostly consist of voluminous documents related to exhaustion of administrative remedies. Matters referenced in these documents cover a range of dates from as early as 2003 and continuing through 2014. The grievance submissions themselves are lengthy, often rambling and/or conclusory, and therefore, make it difficult to ascertain the basic facts which form the bases for the grievances, i.e., who, what, where and when.

Additionally, the Amended Complaint includes a part "(A)" in which Plaintiff states that he "would incorporate by reference all motion's [sic] that were granted" and that "adding these Motion [sic] will substantiate what has been going on by the Supervisor's [sic] at the Private Prison System's [sic] in Oklahoma." Id. at p. 12. Directly thereafter, he states: "consolidate cases" and lists a series of case numbers without reference to the court in which the cases were filed. Id.; see also id. at p. 8 (stating in the "Request for Relief" section of the Amended Complaint: "[i]f you need dates to show a pattern or practice for what those defendant(s) has done to me to include them into this civil right's [sic] action to determine the full abuse from facility to facility . . . Oklahoma."). Plaintiff, therefore, has ignored the Court's express directive that he not incorporate matters by reference.

It is equally hard to decipher against whom Plaintiff's claims are brought. The Amended Complaint names, in part "(A)," the following Defendants: (1) Ofc. Kober, et al., (2) Wardens and Ex-Wardens; (3) Mr. Poppel; (4) David Miller; (5) C. Chester; (6) Mr. H. Rios; (7) B.R. Gibson; (8) the Private Prison System's (GEO Group, Inc.) Administrator's; (9) Lt. D. Johns; (10) the Oklahoma Department of Corrections (ODOC); (11) Director's Designee Ms. MelindaGuilfoyle; (12) Debbie Morton; (13) Sgt. Haung; (14) Sgt. Bashear; (15) Case Manager's [sic] Mrs. Plume & Ms. Rivera; (16) Medical (HSA) Melinda Fleener; (17) Ms. Reid Wardens Secretary; (18) Diamonback [sic] Correctional Fac.; (19) Cimarron Corr. Fac.; (20) Great Plains Correctional Fac.; (21) 2002-03 Lawton Corr. Facility; (22) 2006 Lawton Corr. Facility; and (23) Justin Jones, Director (ODOC). See Amended Complaint at p. 12. In various other places, it appears Plaintiff purports to name additional Defendants. See, e.g., Amended Complaint at p. 13 (referencing as Defendants Ofc. Boelter, Ofc. Duncan, Mr. Cantwell, Mr. Harding and Mr. Henderson). The Court cannot meaningfully determine the persons Plaintiff intends to sue much less which claims he brings against each of the purported defendants. See Order [Doc. No. 51] at p. 3 (advising Plaintiff that he should "specify which defendants [each] claim is against").

As noted above, after filing the Amended Complaint, Plaintiff filed various motions expressing that he may wish to limit his claims and/or the number of defendants. But Plaintiff never dismissed any defendants. Most...