Kostuch v. Leabhart
- Michael Davis
- 0:19-cv-00897
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 5
In Kostuch v. Leabhart, Judge Davis dismissed both complaints without prejudice and denied Kostuch’s fee-waiver application as moot.
David Richard Kostuch’s original and amended complaints were dismissed without prejudice, and his application to proceed without prepaying fees or costs was denied as moot. The order ended the case as presented but did not bar refiling.
What happened
In Kostuch v. Leabhart, David Richard Kostuch, representing himself, filed a complaint and later an amended complaint against Laurie Leabhart and other defendants. He described alleged forced labor, medical problems, family disputes, and trade-secret theft, and referred to a claim under the Thirteenth Amendment.
The court found that the amended complaint was not understandable enough to show what legal claim Kostuch was bringing against any defendant. It also found that he had not identified a law implementing his Thirteenth Amendment theory and that the complaint did not show that the defendants acted under state authority, which would be required for a civil-rights claim under Section 1983.
Judge Michael J. Davis adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation and dismissed both the original and amended complaints without prejudice because they failed to state a claim for relief. The court denied Kostuch’s application to proceed without paying court fees as moot.
The detailed version
- Kostuch v. Leabhart · No. 0:19-cv-00897
- Michael Davis
- Aug. 29, 2019
Background
David Richard Kostuch proceeded without a lawyer. Magistrate Judge Hildy Bowbeer recommended dismissing the original complaint without prejudice and denying Kostuch’s application to proceed without prepaying fees or costs as moot. Kostuch requested appointment of counsel and additional time to object. The court denied appointed counsel, granted additional time, and allowed objections by July 24, 2019. Kostuch filed no objection. The district court conducted a de novo review, meaning an independent review of the record, and adopted the recommendation.
Kostuch later filed an amended complaint. He stated that he would abandon a Fourteenth Amendment claim and assert only a claim under the Thirteenth Amendment based on alleged forced labor. He also mentioned trade-secret theft and described himself as being in “virtual involuntary servitude” related to his status as an inventor, medical treatment, and continuing pain. He alleged wrongdoing by relatives and medical providers at Regions Hospital and named additional entities, including Mayo Clinic Health System and the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services.
Court’s Analysis
The court explained that an application to proceed without prepaying fees must be denied, and the action dismissed, when the complaint fails to state a claim for which relief can be granted under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). The court concluded that the amended complaint was incomprehensible and did not identify a legally sufficient cause of action against any defendant.
The court found that Kostuch had not identified an implementing statute for his Thirteenth Amendment theory. It also concluded that Section 1983 could not apply because the amended complaint did not suggest that the relatives, doctors, or other individuals allegedly involved in the forced-servitude allegations acted under color of state law. The court rejected Kostuch’s assertion that a doctor acts under state authority merely because the doctor holds a professional license.
Disposition
Judge Michael J. Davis ordered that both the original Complaint and the Amended Complaint be dismissed without prejudice. The court denied Kostuch’s application to proceed in district court without prepaying fees or costs as moot. The order directed that judgment be entered accordingly.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.