United States District Court, D. South Dakota, Southern Division
JESSE C. TIEDEMAN, Plaintiff,
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
AND DISMISSING CASE
E. SCHREIER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Jesse Tiedeman, is an inmate at the South Dakota State
Penitentiary in Sioux Falls. Tiedeman filed a pro se civil
rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and requested
leave to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. §
1915. Docket 1; Docket 4. Tiedeman also filed a motion to
appoint counsel and several supplements to his complaint.
Dockets 6; 8-13. The court has now screened Tiedeman's
complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. For the following
reasons, the court grants Tiedeman's motion to proceed in
forma pauperis and dismisses his complaint.
names the Department of Corrections (DOC) as the only
defendant in this case. Docket 1. Although difficult to
follow, Tiedeman claims the DOC interfered with his mail and
access to the courts. Id.
alleges that the DOC has interfered with his mail on several
occasions. Id. When Tiedeman received mail from the
United States Department of the Interior, he was able to view
the contents briefly before the mail was confiscated.
Id. at 4. Tiedeman further alleges that the DOC
interfered with his access to the courts by denying him legal
copies, stealing his legal documents, and denying him the
right to mail his legal documents. Id. at 1, 3, 5-6,
10, 13, 16-14. As relief, Tiedeman requests $10 million in
damages and reinstatement of his disability pay. Id.
court must accept the well-pleaded allegations in the
complaint as true and draw all reasonable inferences in favor
of the non-moving party. Schriener v. Quicken Loans,
Inc., 774 F.3d 442, 444 (8th Cir. 2014). Civil rights
and pro se complaints must be liberally construed.
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (citation
omitted); Bediako v. Stein Mart, Inc., 354 F.3d 835,
839 (8th Cir. 2004). Even with this construction, “a
pro se complaint must contain specific facts supporting its
conclusions.” Martin v. Sargent, 780 F.2d
1334, 1337 (8th Cir. 1985); see also Ellis v. City of
Minneapolis, 518 Fed.Appx. 502, 504 (8th Cir. 2013).
Civil rights complaints cannot be merely conclusory.
Davis v. Hall, 992 F.2d 151, 152 (8th Cir. 1993);
Parker v. Porter, 221 Fed.Appx. 481, 482 (8th Cir.
complaint “does not need detailed factual allegations .
. . [but] requires 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 a plaintiff cannot make the
requisite showing, dismissal is appropriate.”
Abdullah v. Minnesota, 261 Fed.Appx. 926, 927 (8th
Cir. 2008); see also Beavers v. Lockhart,
755 F.2d 657, 663 (8th Cir. 1985). Under 28 U.S.C. §
1915A, the court must screen prisoner complaints and dismiss
them if they “(1) [are] 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.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).
Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis
the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), a prisoner who
“brings a civil action or files an appeal in forma
pauperis . . . shall be required to pay the full amount of a
filing fee.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). The court
may, however, accept partial payment of the initial filing
fee where appropriate. Therefore, “ ‘[w]hen an
inmate seeks pauper status, the only issue is whether the
inmate pays the entire fee at the initiation of the
proceeding or over a period of time under an installment
plan.' ” Henderson v. Norris, 129 F.3d
481, 483 (8th Cir. 1997) (quoting McGore v.
Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 604 (6th Cir. 1997)).
initial partial filing fee that accompanies an installment
plan is calculated according to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1),