Shortymacknifisent v. Beltz

Background

The court considered a report and recommendation issued by United States Magistrate Judge Becky R. Thorson on November 18, 2022. Archbishop Kingpimp Shortymacknifisent filed two notices, and the court treated both as objections to the report and recommendation. The court reviewed any specifically challenged portions of the report and recommendation independently. It also applied the rule that filings by a person without a lawyer are read liberally, while explaining that this does not allow the court to add facts or create legal theories for that person.

The court found that the objections were not stated specifically or coherently. Because the plaintiff had not clearly identified objections requiring discussion, the court adopted the report and recommendation in its entirety.

Rulings

The court ordered the following:

- The report and recommendation was adopted in its entirety. - The objections at ECF Nos. 94 and 95 were overruled. - The filing at ECF No. 65 was designated the operative complaint. - Claims against defendant MCF-Stillwater were dismissed without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. - Official-capacity claims were dismissed without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. - Official-capacity claims seeking prospective injunctive relief were dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim. - Individual-capacity claims against Guy Bosch, “Quist,” “Grievance Coordinator,” “Grievance Authority,” “Demay,” “Swanson,” John Landrette, “Senior Librarians on the DOC Staff,” Sue Norton, Jessica Stewart, Martha Woltman, Corey Felda, “Hammer,” “Davis,” “Clark,” “Kline,” “Winberg,” “African Officer Whose First and Last Name Begins with a D,” “R. Holmes,” “Zempel,” “Otoo,” and “Dr. McCann” were dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim. - The motions at ECF Nos. 8, 17, and 36, along with the portion of ECF No. 9 requesting an order requiring service on defendants, were denied as moot. - The motions at ECF Nos. 18, 19, 34, 41, 47, 50, 51, 59, 85, 88, and 91; the remaining portion of ECF No. 9; and ECF Nos. 20 and 45 to the extent they sought affirmative relief were denied. - The motions at ECF Nos. 15, 37, 48, 49, and 55 were denied without prejudice. - The fourth complaint at ECF No. 84 was stricken. - The motion to amend at ECF No. 87 was denied.

Filing fee and service

Because the court had granted the plaintiff’s application to proceed without prepaying the filing fee and had found that he had no assets or means to pay an initial partial fee, it ordered him to pay the unpaid $350 filing-fee balance under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). The clerk was ordered to notify the authorities at the institution where the plaintiff was confined.

The plaintiff was ordered to submit completed Marshal Service Forms for “Chaplain Scott,” “Chaplain Paul,” “Hennen,” Marisa Williams, Victor Wancheca, “Reid,” “CPD Moe,” Corey Anderson-Moe, “Lt. Spets,” “T. Harrington,” “AWO Stenseth,” Nikki Vee, “Kruschke,” and “Captain Darling.” If he did not return the forms within 30 days of the order’s date, the matter would be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. After receiving the forms, the clerk was directed to seek waivers of service under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(d). A defendant who failed without good cause to return a waiver within 30 days after it was mailed could be charged with later service expenses.

Classification

This is a procedural order. The court adopted recommendations that dismissed claims for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim, and it also ruled on motions, amendment, filing fees, and service. The order did not decide the underlying claims on their merits.