Kohute v. U. S. White House

Background

Kevin J. Kohute, an inmate at the Smith County Jail in Tyler, Texas, filed this pro se civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He later filed an amended complaint. The court reviewed the amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which requires screening of a prisoner’s complaint against a governmental entity or government official.

The amended complaint referred to a “Greyhound bus lawsuit for Washington D.C. tour bus,” listed locations in Washington, D.C., and abroad, and included a passage the court reproduced as largely unclear. Kohute also asked for assistance filing a habeas petition. The court said it appeared he was a civil detainee in Texas, based on allegations that he had been sent illegally to a mental hospital and his reference to the Texas Innocence Project. The court stated that assistance with such a petition should be sought from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas because Smith County falls within that district.

Screening analysis

Section 1915A requires the court to identify legally recognizable claims and dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, or seek money from an immune defendant. The court noted that pleadings filed without a lawyer must be read liberally.

The court concluded that Kohute’s amended complaint did not state any claim for relief. It did not identify an injury or a responsible party, and the court found that it did not contain a statement giving rise to a federal claim in the Northern District of California.

Although courts generally give prisoner plaintiffs an opportunity to amend, the court may deny further amendment when amendment would be futile, among other circumstances. Because Kohute had already amended his complaint and the court found that further amendment would be futile, it denied leave to amend.

Fee-waiver application and disposition

Kohute’s motion to proceed without paying the filing fee was incomplete. He had not attached a certified trust-account statement and had not signed the document authorizing the court to obtain one. The court denied the motion.

The court dismissed the action for failure to pay the filing fee or complete the fee-waiver application, and for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The dismissal was without leave to amend. The Clerk was directed to close the file.