United States District Court, D. South Dakota, Western Division
JEFFREY L. VIKEN, CHIEF JUDGE
February 25, 2016, plaintiff Clayton Walker filed a motion
for a preliminary injunction which the court construed as a
pro se complaint. (Docket 1). Mr. Walker also moved
for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Docket 3),
which the court granted. (Docket 8). The court ordered Mr.
Walker to show cause why his complaint should not be
dismissed as frivolous, without merit, and failing to state a
claim and why the court should not enter an injunction
permanently enjoining him from filing further lawsuits or
other pleadings in the United States District Court for the
District of South Dakota unless he satisfied requirements
outlined in the order. Id. For the reasons explained
below, Mr. Walker’s complaint is dismissed pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) because it is frivolous,
without merit and fails to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted.
Response to Order to Show Cause
court ordered Mr. Walker to show cause why his complaint
should not be dismissed. In response, Mr. Walker filed three
documents titled, “Objection on Importance of Ruling
held in Abeyance and Request for Oral Argument, ”
(Docket 9), “Oral Argument and Request for Hearing on
Tailored Restrictions, ” (Docket 10), and “Motion
to Show Cause: ‘Their Rights.’ ” (Docket
11). Mr. Walker responds to the court’s order and
argues his case is important and should not be dismissed as
frivolous. (Docket 9 at p. 2). He discusses the state’s
power to pass laws to protect public health. Id. at
3. He explains he is not seeking damages, only injunctive
relief. Id. He claims he can satisfy the test for
injunctive relief. (Docket 11 at p. 2).
these arguments are responsive to the court’s order.
Mr. Walker does not provide a legal basis showing his
complaint should not be dismissed. He interprets the
court’s usage of the word “frivolous” as a
finding that the court views the underlying issue he raises,
the exposure of college students and other citizens to HIV,
as not serious. That is not the case. Mr. Walker’s
complaint is frivolous because he pled no personal injury and
he has no connection to those he claims to represent. Mr.
Walker claims he is advocating for the college students and
residents of South Dakota. (Docket 11 at 2) (“I am
advocating for the students, [and] residents of South Dakota,
and surrounding areas.”). Mr. Walker has no legal
relationship to these individuals, and he does not explain
how he is in a position to file claims on their behalf.
Walker does not have standing to bring this case in federal
court. One essential aspect of the “Cases” or
“Controversies” requirement of Article III of the
Constitution “is that any person invoking the power of
a federal court must demonstrate standing to do so.”
Hollingsworth v. Perry, 133 S.Ct. 2652, 2661 (2013).
“This requires the litigant to prove that he has
suffered a concrete and particularized injury . . . .”
Id. (citing Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife,
504 U.S. 555, 560-561 (1992)). “In other words, for a
federal court to have authority under the Constitution to
settle a dispute, the party before it must seek a remedy for
a personal and tangible harm.” Id. Mr. Walker
cannot prove he suffered “personal” harm because,
as he admits in his filings, he did not bring the complaint
on his own behalf, but to protect the college students and
residents of South Dakota. His responses to the court’s
order to show cause does not rectify the standing issue. The
case is dismissed. See Haan v. Noem, No. CIV
13-1009, 2013 WL 5701638, at *3 (D.S.D. Oct. 17, 2013)
(quoting Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32
(1992)) (“[The] court has the authority to dismiss a
claim based on a indisputably meritless legal theory”.)
(internal quotation marks omitted).
Response to Order to Enjoin Mr. Walker
Walker has filed six other lawsuits in this district. See
Walker v. Peterson, 12-cv-04078-KES; Walker v.
Gant, 14-cv-05062-LLP; Walker v. Siebrasse,
14-cv-05090-JLV; Walker v. Rabern, 14-cv-05095-JLV;
Walker v. Rensch, 15-cv-05035-JLV; Walker v.
Harmon, 15-cv-05037-JLV. This court dismissed
Siebrasse, Rabern and Rensch for
failing to state a claim on which relief could be granted.
Mr. Walker’s filing history in the Western Division
demonstrates his sustained proclivity to file suits without
legal merit. With the exception of Rabern, which the
court dismissed because Mr. Walker’s slander and libel
claims were not cognizable under § 1983, Mr.
Walker’s Western Division cases were dismissed because
they were brought against defendants who were not state
Walker argues the court has not dismissed enough of his cases
as frivolous to justify permanently enjoining him from filing
in federal court without paying the filing fee, having the
pleadings signed by an attorney, or following the conditions
identified by the court. See Docket 11. He also
argues an injunction will not save the court any time.
Id. at 4. The court finds Mr. Walker has shown good
cause not to be enjoined from filing further suits in federal
court or to be subject to any filing restrictions at this
time. The court, however, cautions Mr. Walker against the
continued filing of frivolous or unmeritorious cases and
contacting court personnel in a harassing manner.
on the above discussion, it is
that Mr. Walker’s complaint (Docket 1) is dismissed
without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)
because it is frivolous, without merit and fails to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted.
FURTHER ORDERED that Walker’s motion to appoint counsel
(Docket 4), motion for service (Docket 5) and motion for