Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Dalrymple v. Dooley

United States District Court, Eighth Circuit

May 30, 2013

DANIEL R. DALRYMPLE and LESLIE W. WHITE, JR., Plaintiffs,
v.
ROBERT DOOLEY, Warden; JENNIFER STANWICK-KLIMEK, Associate Warden; SUSAN JACOBS, Associate Warden; LELAND TJEERDSMA, Special Security; JACQUELINE PETERS, Sergeant; NICOLE ST. PIERRE, Mail Room; CORY NELSON, Mental Health; TOM GILCHRIST, Mental Health; MATT FITCH, Laundry; TRAVIS TJEERDSMA, Unit Coordinator; TAMMY DOYLE, Unit Manager; LORI DROTZMAN, GED Teacher; TREVOR PASCH, CBM Supervisor; GREG KATHAN, CBM Supervisor; KIMBERLY LIPPINCOTT, Case Manager; SUNNY WALTER, Attorney; LAINE SCHRYVERS, Unit Manager; JOSHUA KLIMEC, Case Manager; JAMES HALSEY, C.A.C. Library; SGT. GARY CHRISTENSEN, Unit Manager; NANCY CHRISTENSEN, Unit Manager; DIANE ROMKEMA, Case Manager; MARK BIDNE, Paralegal; CARLA GROSSHUESCH, Unit Coordinator; MICHAEL HANVEY, Physician Assistant; CPL. TERRY ROMKEMA, Corporal; SGT. JERRAME LARSON, Sergeant; MT. LT. MICHAEL GROSSHUESCH, Lieutenant; GARY AVDOYAN, Correctional Officer; CPT. MICHAEL DOYLE, Captain; KAY MARROW, Correctional Officer; LT. DANIEL SESTAK, Lieutenant; DEBBIE EILERS, GED Teacher; and MARK PISCHEL, Correctional Officer, Defendants.

ORDER GRANTING PARTIAL MOTION TO DISMISS, DENYING MOTIONS FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIONS AND TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDERS, DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL, DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY, AND GRANTING MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT

KAREN E. SCHREIER, District Judge.

Plaintiffs, Daniel R. Dalrymple and Leslie W. White, Jr., have filed motions for preliminary injunctions and temporary restraining orders (Docket 116; Docket 119), a motion to appoint counsel (Docket 143), a motion for an extension of time to file amended documents (Docket 144), a motion to compel discovery (Docket 149), and a motion to amend complaint (Docket 150). Defendants have filed responses to several of plaintiffs' pending motions. Docket 130; Docket 155; Docket 156. Additionally, defendants have filed a partial motion to dismiss. Docket 112. For reasons set forth below, the court grants defendants' partial motion to dismiss; denies plaintiffs' motions for preliminary injunctions and temporary restraining orders, motion to appoint counsel, motion for extension of time to file amended documents, and motion to compel discovery; and grants plaintiffs' motion to amend complaint.

I. The Court Grants Defendants' Partial Motion to Dismiss.

Pro se complaints, "however inartfully pleaded, ' [are] held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.'" Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976) (quoting Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972)); see also Frey v. City of Herculaneum, 44 F.3d 667, 671 (8th Cir. 1995) (noting that "civil rights pleadings should be construed liberally"). Nonetheless, a pro se complaint must comply with the minimal requirements set forth in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which specifically require pleadings to contain "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). Moreover, although a pro se complaint need not contain detailed factual allegations, it must "allege facts sufficient to support the claims advanced." Stone v. Harry, 364 F.3d 912, 914 (8th Cir. 2004). The court is not required to "supply additional facts, nor will [it] construct a legal theory that assumes facts that have not been pleaded." Id. (citing Dunn v. White, 880 F.2d 1188, 1197 (10th Cir. 1989)). Finally, a pro se complaint must contain "more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). If the complaint does not contain these bare essentials, dismissal is appropriate. Beavers v. Lockhart, 755 F.2d 657, 663 (8th Cir. 1985).

On January 2, 2013, the court issued an order dismissing several of plaintiffs' claims for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted and directing the clerk to cause service for the remaining nineteen claims. Docket 103. On February 13, 2013, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint from which the previously dismissed claims were removed and eighteen of the nineteen remaining claims were realleged. Docket 107. Then, on March 5, 2013, defendants filed a partial motion to dismiss, asserting that plaintiffs failed to state a claim against various defendants, including Jacqueline Peters, Cory Nelson, Tom Gilchrist, Matt Fitch, Trevor Pasch, Greg Kathan, Sunny Walter, Laine Schryvers, Joshua Klimek, James Halsey, Sgt. Gary Christiensen, Diane Romkema, Mark Bidne, Sgt. Jerrame Larson, Captain Michael Doyle, and Lt. Daniel Sestak. Docket 113. Plaintiffs did not file a response in opposition to defendants' motion.

Based on the information presented in plaintiffs' amended complaint (Docket 107), the court finds that plaintiffs have failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted with respect to each of the defendants listed in defendants' partial motion to dismiss. In short, plaintiffs have not supplied facts that would support a claim against any of these defendants. At best, plaintiffs' complaint contains conclusions with respect to Jacqueline Peters, Cory Nelson, Tom Gilchrist, Matt Fitch, Trevor Pasch, Greg Kathan, Sunny Walter, Laine Schryvers, Joshua Klimek, James Halsey, Sgt. Gary Christensen, Diane Romkema, Mark Bidne, Sgt. Jerrame Larson, Captain Michael Doyle, and Lt. Daniel Sestak. The court will not construct a legal theory that assumes facts that have not been pleaded. Stone, 364 F.3d at 914 (citing Dunn, 880 F.2d at 1197). Accordingly, the above-named defendants are dismissed without prejudice from this action.

II. The Court Denies Plaintiffs' Motions for Preliminary Injunctions and Temporary Restraining Orders.

In the instant case, plaintiffs have filed two motions for preliminary injunctions and temporary restraining orders pursuant to Rule 65(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Docket 116; Docket 119. In the first of these motions, plaintiffs request a preliminary injunction to prevent defendants from confiscating plaintiffs' legal documents. Docket 116. In the second motion, plaintiffs request a preliminary injunction to prevent defendants from restricting plaintiffs' ability to freely correspond with one another through the sending and receiving of legal mail. Docket 119. Defendants oppose both motions for preliminary injunctions. Docket 130.

"A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy." Roudachevski v. All-American Care Centers, Inc., 648 F.3d 701, 705 (8th Cir. 2011) (citing Watkins Inc. v. Lewis, 346 F.3d 841, 844 (8th Cir. 2003)). "The burden of proving that a preliminary injunction should be issued rests entirely with the movant." Goff v. Harper, 60 F.3d 518, 520 (8th Cir. 1995). To determine whether the issuance of a preliminary injunction is appropriate, the court considers the following factors:

(1) the threat of irreparable harm to the movant;
(2) the state of balance between this harm and the injury that granting the injunction will inflict on other parties litigant;
(3) the probability that movant will succeed on the merits; and
(4) the public interest.

Dataphase Sys., Inc. v. C L Sys., Inc., 640 F.2d 109, 114 (8th Cir. 1981). The court asks "whether the balance of equities so favors the movant that justice requires the court to intervene to preserve the ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.