Opinion ID: 2720885
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Dismissal of first complaint

Text: On September 19, 2013, Mr. Lewis filed a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985 & 1986 naming Jerry Clark, the Deputy Sheriff of Natrona County Sheriff’s Department, Detentions Division (“Lieutenant Clark”), and several other “unknown named” defendants, including deputies working at the detention center and lawyers from the Natrona County Attorney’s Office (“NCAO”). Mr. Lewis alleged several constitutional claims, sought to certify a class of inmate detainees, and submitted a list of interrogatories for Lieutenant Clark. Mr. Lewis also sought to proceed in forma pauperis (“ifp”). On October 16, 2013, the district court denied Mr. Lewis’s motion to proceed ifp and sua sponte dismissed his first complaint for failure to state a claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) (providing that a court “shall dismiss the case” if it determines that the action “fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted”). The court read Mr. Lewis’s “rather lengthy complaint” (124 pages) to attempt to assert unconstitutional deprivation of access to the courts regarding his federal criminal trial due to “lack of legal resources at the Natrona County Jail.” ROA at 177. Because Mr. Lewis was represented by counsel in his federal criminal case and had recently entered a plea agreement, the -4- court concluded his complaint failed to show prejudice, which is required to state a claim based on deprivation of access to the courts. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 351 (1996) (requiring that a prisoner demonstrate “the alleged shortcomings in the library” actually hindered his or her “efforts to pursue a legal claim”); ROA at 178 (“[I]t is not clear to the Court, given the status of Plaintiff’s pending criminal case, how Plaintiff has been prejudiced in pursuing litigation.”). Additionally, the court rejected Mr. Lewis’s attempt to bring a class action because he filed “pro se and cannot represent other individuals, since he is not a properly licensed attorney.” ROA at 178. It therefore dismissed his complaint without prejudice and granted leave to amend. 2. Denial of motion for class certification and dismissal of amended complaint On October 25, 2013, Mr. Lewis filed an “ex Parte motion to Grant Plaintiff to file under” Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. ROA at 185. On November 20, 2013, Mr. Lewis filed a 164-page amended complaint, which alleged numerous facts, advanced eight claims under various constitutional provisions, and included twenty-eight exhibits documenting his administrative grievances. See ROA at 198-361 (amended complaint), 205 (arguments), 298-350 (exhibits). The amended complaint alleged several constitutional violations against the following defendants: (1) Lieutenant Clark; (2) an unknown deputy working Control Tower Two at the Natrona County Detention Center on August 7, 2013 at 10:00 p.m.; (3) 45 other unknown deputies working at the NCDC mail room between July and August 2013; and (4) 15 unknown lawyers working at the NCAO. See ROA at 198-02, 217, 227, 235, 248, 261, 276, 284, 288. In his prayer for -5- relief, Mr. Lewis sought declaratory relief, various forms of injunctive relief, and monetary damages, including nominal, compensatory, and punitive damages. See id. at 354-58. On January 8, 2014, the district court denied Mr. Lewis’s ex parte motion to certify a class under Rule 23 and dismissed his amended complaint. See ROA at 402. The court first rejected Mr. Lewis’s motion for Rule 23 certification for the same reasons it rejected his class-based arguments in its original order—he could not represent a class pro se. Id. at 403. The district court then considered the allegations in his amended complaint. The court read his amended complaint to allege several claims: (1) an equal protection violation stemming from the allegation that state prisoners at NCDC have access to state legal materials but federal detainees like Mr. Lewis do not have access to federal legal materials; (2) denial of access to the courts based on his inability to access the law library and the law library’s lack of federal materials; (3) denial of access to the law library in retaliation for filing grievances; (4) improper advice given by NCAO lawyers to NCDC officials regarding the legality of NCDC policies; (5) denial of written correspondence with his incarcerated son; (6) “general allegations about prisoner safety” relating to “‘snitch’ paperwork”; and (7) an unspecified claim that “Defendants returned federal legal materials [Mr. Lewis’s] wife sent him for exceeding the 10-page limit.” ROA at -6- 404-07. 4 For various reasons discussed below, the district court dismissed Mr. Lewis’s amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failing to state a plausible claim upon which relief could be granted. Although the court dismissed his amended complaint without prejudice, it did not grant Mr. Lewis leave to amend his complaint a second time. The court also denied his motions for appointment of counsel and preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order as moot because he had been transferred to a different facility. See id. at 408-09. The court did not enter a separate judgment. 3. Motion to amend or alter the judgment On February 10, 2014, Mr. Lewis filed a motion to amend or alter the judgment with a re-amended complaint. ROA at 410. On February 13, the district court denied Mr. Lewis’s motion, reasoning that it dismissed Mr. Lewis’s amended complaint “without prejudice, for failure to state a claim,” and “[t]herefore, this case is closed.” Id. at 525. The court also explained that “since the matter was dismissed without prejudice, there was no final judgment entered in this case.” Id. Accordingly, Mr. Lewis’s requested remedies were “not available.” Id. The court nevertheless reviewed Mr. Lewis’s re-amended complaint and concluded he raised the same arguments that the court 4 The court found the “remaining claims in [Mr. Lewis’s] Amended Complaint . . . either duplicative of the claims previously discussed, or [] lack[ing] sufficient facts for the Court to decipher a claim.” Id. at 408. -7- had already rejected from his first amended complaint. Id. Mr. Lewis filed a notice of appeal on February 24, 2014. On April 5, 2014, Mr. Lewis filed a 35-page brief in this court. 5