Abdulrazzak v. Smith

          ORDER DENYING IN PART AND GRANTING IN PART MOTION TO AMEND AND MISCELLANEOUS OTHER MOTIONS

          KAREN E. SCHREIER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         INTRODUCTION

         Plaintiff, Haider Salah Abdulrazzak, is an inmate at the Mike Durfee State Prison in Springfield, South Dakota. He filed a pro se civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Docket 1. Abdulrazzak was later granted permission to amend his complaint. Docket 13. He now has filed multiple motions to amend his complaint again. Dockets 17, 18, 31, 44. The court grants Abdulrazzak's motions in part and denies the motions in part. The court also directs service in part.

         FACTUAL BACKGROUND

         The pertinent facts are set forth in the initial screening order at docket 13.

         LEGAL STANDARD

         Under Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party may amend his pleadings once without court authorization if the motion is made within 21 days after service or within 21 days after service of a responsive pleading. “In all other cases, a party may amend its pleadings only with the opposing party's written consent or the court's leave. The court should freely give leave when justice so requires.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 15 (a)(2). A motion to amend may be denied when the motion would cause undue delay, is made in bad faith or based on a dilatory motive on the part of the movant, or is futile. Popoalii v. Corr. Med. Servs., 512 F.3d 488, 497 (8th Cir. 2008). Leave of court is required here, because Abdulrazzak has previously amended his complaint.

         Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the court must screen prisoner complaints and dismiss them if they are “(1) frivolous, malicious, or fail[] to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (2) seek[] monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 1915A(b).

         DISCUSSION

         Abdulrazzak has labeled the document at Docket 31-1 as his second amended complaint. The court will screen this document to determine if the motion to amend should be granted.^[1]

         I. Count I

         In Count I, Abdulrazzak raises claims under the First, Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments against South Dakota Secretary of Corrections (SD DOC) Dennis Kaemingk, S.D. DOC Policy Maker Aaron Miller, the S.D. Board of Pardons and Paroles (the Board), and the Director of the Board Doug Clark. Docket 31-1 at 4. Abdulrazzak states that he brings these claims against defendants “as municipalities” and against the Parole Board members, who he claims “adopted an unconstitutional arbitrary and discriminatory act.” Id. He alleges that there is a policy to discriminate against him as a non-citizen of the United States. Id. He alleges that the policy required him to admit his guilt and participate in sex offender treatment, requirements that were not in his original parole agreement. Id.

         First, with regard to the claims against Kaemingk, Miller, and Clark, the court addressed this claim previously in its order at Docket 13. The second amended complaint still alleges that the defendants are “municipalities.” The defendants are not “municipalities.” Municipalities are cities or towns-none of these defendants are cities or towns. Even if they were, a municipality may only be liable for a violation of constitutional rights if the violation was caused by its customs or policies. Crawford v. Van Buren Cty., 678 F.3d 666, 669 (8th Cir. 2012) (quoting Rynders v. Williams, 650 F.3d 1188, 1195 (8th Cir. 2011)). Abdulrazzak does not point to a custom or policy that was adopted by a city or town that violated his rights.

         Second, Abdulrazzak alleges that the Parole Board members “adopted an unconstitutional arbitrary and discriminatory act by parole officer, where unlike U.S. Citizens, she required me to participate in a sex offender treatment and to admit the guilt almost 2 years into my initial parole release on 6/25/2014.” Docket 31-1 at 4. He alleges that defendants adopted such custom to save the Department of Corrections money on rehabilitation programming. Abdulrazzak does not identify an official policy or custom that was adopted by the Parole Board. Instead, he references the actions of one parole officer. He does not explain how his citizenship status or nationality changed and caused the Parole Board members to begin discriminating against him two years after his initial parole release. Therefore, Abdulrazzak fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, and it would be futile to allow him to amend Count I.

         II. Count II

         In Count II, Abdulrazzak raises claims under the First, Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments against Warden Robert Dooley, Deputy Warden Susan Jacobs, and Unit Staff Member Kim Lippincott. Docket 31-1 at 6. Abdulrazzak claims that Dooley, Jacobs, and Lippincott violated his rights by failing to discuss the requirements of parole that were subsequently added. Id. He alleges that they discussed the parole requirements with United States citizens. Id. He also alleges that if defendants had discussed these parole requirements with him, he ...