Melton

Background

Kenneth David Melton filed a letter that was docketed as a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and later submitted a civil-rights complaint form. The opinion states that Melton was in custody at the Monroe Correctional Complex in Monroe, Washington, and was proceeding without a lawyer. He sought permission to proceed without paying filing fees; the court stated that request was granted in a separate order.

Melton’s complaint named “Military, Government, Administration, et al.” and “Federal Contractors” as defendants. He asked the court to “dismiss all [his] infringement cases containing Lexis Nexis Software” and to dismiss software taxes allegedly due from March through October 2023. The court described the handwritten complaint as difficult to decipher and quoted allegations concerning government experiments, computer software, data, court records, and danger to Melton’s life.

Court’s Analysis

Because Melton was a prisoner seeking relief from governmental entities or officials, the court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The court also applied the screening requirement for cases filed without paying filing fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). It explained that a § 1983 claim requires allegations that a federal right was violated and that the violation was committed by a person acting under state law.

The court found that Melton did not allege that the federal court had subject-matter jurisdiction—the legal authority to hear the case. It also found that the complaint did not identify a law allowing Melton to obtain relief or a legally recognizable theory of recovery. In addition, the factual allegations did not provide enough plausible facts to support a claim or identify the specific acts by particular defendants that allegedly violated Melton’s rights.

Rulings

The court DISMISSED Melton’s complaint for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted. The dismissal was with leave to amend. The court directed Melton to file, within 28 days, an amended complaint that is simple, concise, and direct; explains the basis for federal jurisdiction; states each claim in a separate numbered paragraph; identifies each defendant and the specific action or inaction attributed to that defendant; and identifies the injury resulting from each claim. The amended complaint would replace the earlier complaints and had to include all claims Melton wished to pursue. The court stated that failure to file a compliant amended complaint within the deadline, or failure to correct the identified deficiencies, would result in dismissal of the action without prejudice.

The court GRANTED Melton’s request for an extension of time to submit his application to proceed without paying filing fees. The court DENIED his “Motion of Docket/No Contact Order,” with leave to refile if he could renew the requests more clearly and in good faith.

The court construed Melton’s “Motion for a Protective Order” as a motion for a preliminary injunction, which is a court order requiring or preventing conduct while a case proceeds. The court DENIED that motion because the defendants had not been served and Melton had not met the requirements for an emergency temporary restraining order without notice. The order terminated Docket Nos. 11, 12, and 13 and directed the Clerk to send Melton a blank civil-rights complaint form.