United States District Court, N.D. Iowa, Cedar Rapids Division
R. READE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter before the court is the plaintiff's application to
proceed in forma pauperis (docket no. 1), filed on June 16,
2017, “complaint” (docket no. 1-1), filed on June
16, 2017, motion for preliminary injunction (docket no. 2),
filed on June 16, 2017, motion to appoint counsel (docket no.
3), filed on June 19, 2017, motion for jury trial (docket no.
4), filed on June 21, 2017, motion to continue State's
case (docket no. 5), filed on June 21, 2017, motion to add
parties (docket no. 6), filed on June 29, 2017, motion to add
charges (docket no. 7), filed on June 29, 2017, motion for
perjury charges against officers (docket no. 8), filed on
July 6, 2017, motion to charge Benton County Attorney's
Office with obstruction of justice (docket no. 9), filed on
July 12, 2017, motion to stop all State and Federal criminal
cases (docket no. 10), filed on July 12, 2017, supplement
(docket no. 11), filed on July 28, 2017, motion to add
obstruction of justice and tampering with evidence (docket
no. 12), filed on August 9, 2017, motion to add plaintiff
(docket no. 13), filed on August 17, 2017, motion to
introduce video evidence (docket no. 14), filed on August 28,
2017, motion to charge Benton County judge (docket no. 15),
filed on August 28, 2017, motion for hearing (docket no. 16),
filed on August 28, 2017, motion for permanent injunction to
stay and dismiss all State/Federal investigations (docket no.
17), filed on August 30, 2017, motion for immediate temporary
restraining order and restoration of water services (docket
no. 18), filed on August 30, 2017, motion for emergency
restraining order (docket no. 19), filed on August 31, 2017,
motion to amend complaint (docket no. 20), filed on September
7, 2017, motion to amend complaint to add charges (docket no.
21), filed on September 7, 2017, motion to strip all immunity
(docket no. 22), filed on September 7, 2017, motion to amend
previous motions (docket no. 23), filed on September 7, 2017,
motion to discard evidence (docket no. 24), filed on
September 7, 2017, motion for emergency injunction (docket
no. 25), filed on September 11, 2017, and motion for audio
and video evidence (docket no. 26), filed on September 11,
reviewed the entire record, the court concludes that the
plaintiff's pleadings are not sufficient to commence an
action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 (addressing general
rules of pleading). Because the plaintiff's pleadings are
vague, ambiguous and unorganized, it is unclear what type of
action, if any, that the plaintiff is trying to commence, and
an opposing party could not reasonably prepare a response. In
light of the foregoing, this action is dismissed without
prejudice. All of the plaintiff's motions are denied as
proceeding with any federal action by filing an amended
complaint and an application to proceed in forma pauperis if
he cannot afford to pay the filing fee, the plaintiff should
keep in mind the following:
(1) The court is typically precluded from interfering in the
interworkings of a state court in criminal matters. See
Sprint Communs., Inc. v. Jacobs, ___ U.S.___, ___, 134
S.Ct. 584, 591 (2013) (explaining that Younger v.
Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), precludes a court from
intruding into ongoing state criminal prosecutions);
Zanders v. Swanson, 573 F.3d 591, 593-95 (8th Cir.
2009) (determining that district court properly abstained
from hearing claim because there was no showing of bad faith
or other extraordinary circumstances); Norwood v.
Dickey, 409 F.3d 901, 903 (8th Cir. 2005) (listing
factors to be considered).
(2) A 42 U.S.C. § 1983 cause of action for damages does
not arise until “the conviction or sentence has been
reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order,
declared invalid by an authorized state tribunal . . ., or
called into question by the issuance of a writ of habeas
corpus.” Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486
(3) “[O]fficials acting pursuant to a court order have
‘a quasi judicial absolute immunity from damages for
actions taken to execute that order.'” Rose v.
Flairty, 772 F.3d 552, 554 (8th Cir. 2014) (quoting
Patterson v. Von Riesen, 999 F.2d 1235, 1240 (8th
Cir. 1993)). Aside from being protected when enforcing a
court's directive, an official is entitled to absolute
immunity when he or she performs an “adjudicatory or
prosecutorial function.” Id. Officials have a
quasi judicial absolute immunity when they “perform
discretionary tasks that play an integral part in the
decision making process, ” such as when they
“evaluate facts, draw conclusions, and make
recommendations.” Anton v. Getty, 78 F.3d 393,
396 (8th Cir. 1996).
(4) A prosecutor is immune from civil rights claims that are
based on actions taken in the performance of his or her
prosecutorial duties. See Burns v. Reed, 500 U.S.
478, 486 (1991) (quoting Imbler v. Pachtman, 424
U.S. 409, 430-31 (1976)); Patterson v. Von Riesen,
999 F.2d 1235, 1237 (8th Cir. 1993); Snelling v.
Westhof, 972 F.2d 199, 200 (8th Cir. 1992).
(5) A judge, performing judicial functions, enjoys absolute
immunity from 42 U.S.C. § 1983 liability. See
Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 554-55 (1967); Whisman
v. Rinehart, 119 F.3d 1303, 1309 (8th Cir. 1997);
Callahan v. Rendlen, 806 F.2d 795, 796 (8th Cir.
(6) The court does not have the authority to investigate or
commence criminal proceedings. See e.g., United
States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456, 464 (1996) (making
clear that it is the executive branch that retains broad
discretion to enforce the Nation's criminal laws). If the
plaintiff believes a crime occurred, he should consult law
enforcement officials, and, after conducting an
investigation, those officials may consult with prosecutors
to determine whether charges are warranted. Whether to
prosecute and what charges to file or bring are decisions
that rest in the prosecutor's discretion. See United
States v. Batchelder, 442 U.S. 114, 124 (1979);
Bordenkircher v. Hayes, 434 U.S. 357, 364 (1978);
United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 693 (1974);
Parkhurst v. Tabor, 569 F.3d 861, 867 (8th Cir.
2009). This court has no power to order the government or a
state to investigate or prosecute certain individuals.
(7) “Courts repeatedly have held that there is no
private right of action under [18 U.S.C.] § 241, even
though the statute allows federal authorities to pursue
criminal charges.” United States v. Wadena,
152 F.3d 831, 846 (8th Cir. 1998).
(8) “To establish municipal liability under [42 U.S.C.]
§ 1983, a plaintiff must show that a constitutional
violation was committed pursuant to an official custom,
policy, or practice of the governmental entity.”
Moyle v. Anderson, 571 F.3d 814, 817-18 (8th Cir.
2009) (citing Monell, 436 U.S. at 690-92).
(9) Although courts construe pro se pleadings liberally, pro
se litigants, like all other parties, must abide by the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See, e.g.,
Williams v. Harmon, 294 F. App'x 243, 245 (8th
Cir. 2008) (affirming dismissal where pro se litigant failed
to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure). The
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require parties to formulate
their pleadings in an organized and comprehensible manner.
Specifically, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(1)-(3)
requires that a complaint contain a “short and plain
statement of the grounds for the court's jurisdiction,
” a “short and plain statement” of the
plaintiff's claims and a “demand for the relief
sought.” Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(d)(1)
provides that, although no technical form of pleading is
required, each claim must be simple, concise and direct.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10(b) directs parties to
separate their claims within their pleadings and provides
that each claim should be limited as far as practicable to a
single set of circumstances. In addition, Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 10(b) makes clear that each claim that is
founded on a separate transaction or occurrence must be
stated in a separate count where doing so would promote
court is mindful of the fact that the plaintiff is frustrated
with ongoing state court criminal proceedings, but the proper
forum to address his constitutional concerns in the first
instance is in the Iowa District Court for Linn County, the
Iowa District Court for Benton County, the Iowa ...