United States District Court, D. Montana, Missoula Division
JOANNA M. SNYDER, Plaintiff,
JILL ROSENTHAL and MARK HENKEL, Defendants.
ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
Jeremiah C. Lynch, United States Magistrate Judge.
Snyder filed this action on December 6, 2018.
Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis
states that she is filing "a title 42 § 1983
against Jill Rosenthal... and Mark Henkel." Compl. (Doc.
2) at 1. And, rather than paying the filing fee, she
submitted an inmate trust account statement. The Court will
construe her account statement as a motion to proceed in
forma pauperis. The statement demonstrates she is unable to
pay the filing fee and other waivable costs that may be
involved in the action. Her motion will be granted.
Snyder is a prisoner and is proceeding in forma pauperis, the
Court must review her complaint to determine whether it fails
to state a claim on which relief may be granted. See
28 U.S.C. §§ l9l5(e)(2)(B)(ii), 1915A. Snyder is
also self-represented. "A document filed pro se
is to be liberally construed, and a pro se
complaint, however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less
stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by
lawyers." Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94
(2007) (per curiam) (internal quotation marks and citation
omitted). Courts must briefly explain deficiencies that may
be cured by amendment, see Akhtar v. Mesa, 698 F.3d
1202, 1212 (9th Cir. 2012), but if a claim cannot be cured by
amendment, "the court shall dismiss" it,
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) (emphasis added).
alleges that Defendant Rosenthal, Snyder's parole or
probation officer in Massachusetts, conspired with Defendant
Henkel, a federal probation officer,  to obtain an extraditable
Massachusetts warrant for her arrest in place of a
non-extraditable warrant. Snyder claims this conspiracy was
an abuse of each officer's authority and position of
trust and violated the Constitution. See Compl. at 4
allegations fail to state a claim on which relief may be
granted. Snyder does not contest the existence of a warrant.
She also claims she "left Massachusetts] ¶ 8/1/15
absconding with good cause." Compl. at 2-3 ¶ 17.
This statement is an admission of probable cause sufficient
to support issuance of an arrest warrant. Snyder has no
legally protected interest in preventing issuance of a
warrant that is supported by probable cause. She has no
legally protected interest in restricting a warrant to
non-extraditable status. Her allegations do not support an
inference that either defendant violated the Fourth
Amendment, the Due Process or Equal Protection Clauses of the
Fourteenth Amendment, or any other provision of federal law
of which the Court is aware. The complaint should be
dismissed with prejudice.
on the foregoing, the Court enters the following:
inmate trust account statement, construed as a motion to
proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 1), is GRANTED.
Snyder's complaint should be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for
failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted.
docket should reflect that Snyder's filing of this action
counts as one strike ...