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.

Crosser v. State

United States District Court, N.D. Iowa, Cedar Rapids Division

December 12, 2019

SKYLAR CROSSER, Plaintiff,
v.
STATE OF IOWA, IOWA DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, and JERRY FOXHOVEN, Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

          C.J. Williams United States District Judge

         I. INTRODUCTION

         This matter is before the Court for on a motion to dismiss (Doc. 4) brought by defendants State of Iowa and Iowa Department of Human Services. Plaintiff Skylar Crosser filed several supplements, which the Court charitably construes as a resistance. See Doc.8-16. Oral argument is not necessary. See L.R. 7(c).

         II. BACKGROUND

         On July 24, 2019, plaintiff filed a document which the Clerk of Court's Office characterized as a pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. (Doc. 1). Plaintiff paid the $400 filing fee.[1] In his filing, plaintiff states:

I think I may hold a bad secret with a few others. I have a female individual from the rural Union, Iowa area I believe is being targeted by computers and has led to false official statements and claims to the State of Iowa Departments resulting in defamation of individual's character, coercion, falsifying DNA and conspiracy; accompanied by racketeering. This individual, Lauren Schwark 29 yoa, claims to have a kid with Jim Bonschmidt, of Zearing, IA area. This I believe is not the truth, and I believe the kid is [B.H.] from Alden, IA area. I am concerned for Lauren's safety as she threatens to kill herself and gets programmed to be depressed and has become a fiduciary because of this dark secret. If I do not hear a response, I will file a Federal lawsuit against the DNA company in the next 2-3 weeks. This is around the 8th lawsuit complaint in Cedar Rapids Federal Court with similar allegations of collusion and torture. Lauren has complained to me of satellites entering her body also with alternating currents; completely unacceptable.

(Doc. 1). Plaintiff goes on to request damages for, what he characterizes as, “computer crimes.” The remainder of plaintiff's initial filing is a timeline, describing the effects that “microwaves” have had on him.

         Based on Eighth Circuit precedent, the Court did not conduct an initial review/prescreening of plaintiff's complaint. See Hake v. Clarke, 91 F.3d 1129, 1132 (8th Cir. 1996) (“We find no support for the district court to have conducted a frivolousness review of non-IFP pro se complaints, or to have conducted an initial review of all pro se complaints under Rule 12(b)(6) before service of process and responsive pleadings”). In Phelps v. Lynch, 613 Fed. App'x 552, 553 (8th Cir. 2015) (unpublished), the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals explained:

Phelps was not a prisoner, as required for 28 U.S.C. § 1915A to apply, see Kolocotronis v. Morgan, 247 F.3d 726, 728 (8th Cir. 2001), and he had not sought leave to proceed in forma pauperis, as required for 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) to apply. In addition, the claims were not subject to dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. We further conclude that dismissal under Rule 41(b) was unwarranted, because the district court lacked authority to conduct the underlying preservice screening.

         It appears plaintiff attempted to personally serve the State of Iowa (see Doc. 6) and on August 1, 2019, an attorney entered an appearance on behalf of defendants State of Iowa and Iowa Department of Human Services. To the extent it was necessary, the state defendants waived service[2] (Doc. 5) and filed a motion to dismiss. In their motion to dismiss, the state defendants argue:

Nothing in Document 1 resembles a Complaint in the slightest way, or complies with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. . .. Document 1 . . . does not describe any claim for relief. . .. There is no caption and no way to identify from Document 1 who the parties are. . .. There is really no stretch of the imagination where Document 1 could even be considered a “complaint” within the meaning of the federal rules.

(Doc. 4-1 at 1-5).

         Since the defendants filed their motion to dismiss, plaintiff has filed several supplements, all of which are incomprehensible. Those supplements contain additional timelines about alleged microwave damage, photo copies of receipts, photo copies of lottery tickets, pictures of knives, inappropriate words and phrases, allegations about money laundering, and contain numerous lists of nonsensical numbers. (Doc. 8-16).

         III.MOTION TO ...


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.