Buy This Entire Record For
Headrick v. Baratz
United States District Court, D. South Dakota, Central Division
December 6, 2018
GREGG MATTHEW HEADRICK, Plaintiff,
DR. BARATZ, MAYO BUILDING 1; RAMONA KAUK, HUMAN SERVICE DEPT FOR BLIND; SOCIA L SECURITY, FRANSISCAN SCHEMP MENTAL HOSPITAL, SOCIAL SECURITY DEPT OF SOCIAL WORK, AVERA BEHAVORIAL HEALTH, JOHN ERPENBACH, DR. FULLER, DONNA OSMET, DR. KENALLI, BROOKINGS GUIDANCE CENTER, FLANDREAU GUIDANCE CENTER, MANKATO STATE UNIVERSITY, DR. KEN MCDONALD, VOCTIONAL REHABILITATION; DR. FRAN MCDONALD, LIBRARY SCIENCE; DR. BIRGHAM, LIBRARY SCIENCE; DR. ROYAL, DIRECTOR PSYCHOLOGY; RAMSEY COUNTY MENTAL HEALTH, DR. ALICE WAGSTEAD, DR. JAY WILLETT, TERRY, CENTER FOR BEHAVIOR MODIFICATION, STAFF, BETTY OLSEN, ROBBINSDALE HIGH SCHOOL CETA PSYCHOLOGIST; PICHWICK INTERNATIONAL, MUSICLAND GROUP, AMERICAN CAN COMPANY, UNIVERSITY OF MINNASOTA, DR. MARY ENFIELD, DR. FOLEY, DR. WILSON ANDERSON, PAULA RHOME, PAULA RHOMEJR., DR. RITTER, EYE DEPT.; DR. WOLF, EYE DEPT MEDICAL ARTS; DR. HEINRICKSON, EYE DEPT. MEDICAL ARTS; DR. ZARLING, NUROLOGY; GENE IPSEN, VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION; UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO, ANN IVEY, LEARNING DISABILITIES; OPTOMETRY, VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION, Defendants.
ORDER DISMISSING CASE
ROBERTO A. LANGE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
September 17, 2018, plaintiff Gregg Matthew Headrick,
appearing pro se, filed a complaint. Doc. 1. Headrick filed a
motion to proceed without payment of fees and requests a
court appointed attorney. Docs. 3 and 4.
is a two-step screening process with in forma pauperis
litigants. Martin-Trigona v. Stewart, 691 F.2d 856,
857 (8th Cir. 1982); see also Key v. Does, 217
F.Supp.3d 1006, 1006 (E.D. Ark. 2016). First, district courts
must determine whether a plaintiff is financially eligible to
proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).
Id. Second, district courts are to determine whether
the complaint should be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. §
court may authorize the commencement of suit without
prepayment of fees when an applicant files an affidavit
stating he is unable to pay the costs of the lawsuit. 28
U.S.C. § 1915. Determining whether an applicant is
sufficiently impoverished to qualify to proceed in forma
pauperis under § 1915 is committed to the court's
discretion. Cross v. Gen. Motors Corp., 721 F.2d
1152, 1157 (8th Cir. 1983). "In forma pauperis status
does not require a litigant to demonstrate absolute
destitution." Lee v. McDonald's Corp., 231
F.3d 456 (8th Cir. 2000). Considering the information in the
financial affidavit, the court finds that Headrick has made
the requisite financial showing to proceed in forma pauperis.
See Doc. 3.
inquiry does not end there. Under § 1915, the court must
review the claims in the complaint to determine if they are
(1) frivolous or malicious; (2) fail to state a claim on
which relief may be granted; or (3) seek monetary relief
against a defendant who has immunity. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B). A complaint fails to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted if it does not plead "enough
facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
544, 570 (2007). A plaintiffs complaint "does not need
detailed factual allegations . . . [but] requires more than
labels and conclusions. . ." Id. at 555.
"Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to
relief above the speculative level. . ." Id.
When determining whether a complaint fails to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted, this court "assumes as
true all factual allegations in the pleadings, interpreting
them most favorably to the [pleader]." Magee v.
Trustees. OfHamline Univ., 141 F.3d 532, 534-35 (8th
is proceeding pro se and his complaint is therefore entitled
to a liberal construction. Atkinson v. Bohn, 91 F.3d
1127, 1129 (8th Cir. 1996) (per curiam). Although pro se
complaints are to be construed liberally, "they must
still 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 for a pro se plaintiff, nor construct a
legal theory that assumes facts which have not been pleaded.
complaint is difficult to decipher. Headrick's
"statement of claim" begins:
I currently have Government and Police running my life
(Social Security Court -Rochester 20001) I cant [sic] Work,
Have Friends, Family not allowed near me even-my elderly
Mother. Phone and everything is bugged. A few Friends have to
have the Police running their life also because they know me?
Ramona has things she can do about it, but wants counceling
[sic] people to do it. Eye Doctor Baratz, at Mayo Rochester
will personally send me to Mayo Mental Health, but wants a
court requesting it, not Ramona. I guss [sic] I should just
go over there and beat her up. That will get her and Dr
Baratz together in court. I havn't [sic] worked since
March, not paying bills, everyone mad at me about it.
at 5. As relief, Headrick requests:
Let me work have my friend back and renumeration [sic] for
what was taken from me in my life. Stop the crap of trying to
kill my friend, becau [sic] they know me. Let me do the
entertainment things I do. It bothers know [sic] one.
Id. at 4. Headrick names numerous defendants but
fails to explain how each defendant violated his rights. As
such, Headrick's allegations lack the context necessary
to allow the court to decipher the factual basis of plaintiff
s claims and the potential basis for this court's
jurisdiction. Headrick's complaint fails to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted. The Complaint should,
therefore, be dismissed without prejudice for failure to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and §1915A(b)(1).
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Headrick's motion to
proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 3) is granted.
FURTHER ORDERED that Headrick's complaint is dismissed
FURTHER ORDERED that Headrick's motion to appoint counsel