Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Snyder v. Rosenthal

United States District Court, D. Montana, Missoula Division

December 6, 2018

JOANNA M. SNYDER, Plaintiff,
v.
JILL ROSENTHAL and MARK HENKEL, Defendants.

          ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

          Jeremiah C. Lynch, United States Magistrate Judge.

         Plaintiff Snyder filed this action on December 6, 2018.

         I. Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis

         Snyder 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.

         II. Screening

         Because 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).

         Snyder alleges that Defendant Rosenthal, Snyder's parole or probation officer in Massachusetts, conspired with Defendant Henkel, a federal probation officer, [1] 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 ¶ 27.

         These 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.

         Based on the foregoing, the Court enters the following:

         ORDER

         Snyder's inmate trust account statement, construed as a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 1), is GRANTED.

         RECOMMENDATION

         1. Snyder's complaint should be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted.

         2. The docket should reflect that Snyder's filing of this action counts as one strike ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.