United States District Court, D. Utah
MEMORANDUM DECISION & DISMISSAL ORDER
BENSON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Judge Dee Benson Plaintiff, Brian Oblad, proceeds in
forma pauperis, see 28 U.S.C.S. § 1915
(2019), in this pro se civil-rights suit,
see 42 id. § 1983. The Court now
screens Plaintiff's Sixth Amended Complaint and concludes
that it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
Standard of Review
Court shall dismiss claims in a complaint filed in forma
pauperis that are frivolous, malicious, or fail to state
a claim upon which relief may be granted. See 28
id. § 1915(e)(2)(B). "Dismissal of a pro
se complaint for failure to state a claim is proper only
where it is obvious that the plaintiff cannot prevail on the
facts he has alleged and it would be futile to give him
an[other] opportunity to amend.” Perkins v. Kan.
Dep't of Corrs., 165 F.3d 803, 806 (10th Cir. 1999).
When reviewing a complaint's sufficiency, the Court
"presumes all of plaintiff's factual allegations are
true and construes them in the light most favorable to the
plaintiff." Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106,
1109 (10th Cir. 1991).
Plaintiff is pro se, the Court construes his
pleadings "liberally" and holds them "to a
less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by
lawyers." Id. at 1110. However, "[t]he
broad reading of the plaintiff's complaint does not
relieve [him] of the burden of alleging sufficient facts on
which a recognized legal claim could be based."
Id. While Plaintiff need not describe every fact in
specific detail, "conclusory allegations without
supporting factual averments are insufficient to state a
claim on which relief can be based." Id.
asserts Defendants State of Utah, Larson, Strong, Dietrich,
Smith, Daniels, Zimmerman, and John Does violated his federal
civil rights by discarding his property.
Eleventh Amendment prevents "suits against a state
unless it has waived its immunity or consented to suit, or if
Congress has validly abrogated the state's
immunity." Ray v. McGill, No. CIV-06-0334-HE,
2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51632, at *8 (W.D. Okla. July 26, 2006)
(unpublished) (citing Lujan v. Regents of Univ. of
Cal., 60 F.3d 1511, 1522 (10th Cir. 1995); Eastwood
v. Dep't of Corrs., 846 F.2d 627, 631 (10th Cir.
1988)). Plaintiff asserts no basis for determining that the
State has waived its immunity or that it has been abrogated
by Congress. Because claims against the State are precluded
by Eleventh Amendment immunity, the Court has no
subject-matter jurisdiction to consider them. See
Id. at *9. The State is therefore dismissed.
Does are dismissed from this action “because the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure [do] not permit . . .
actions against unnamed defendants following a suitable
length of time for the plaintiff to identify the John
Does.” Culp v. Williams, 456 Fed.Appx. 718,
720 (10th Cir. 2012). There is “no excuse for
[Plaintiff's] failure to identify the unnamed defendants
after more than a year into the case.” Id.
Here, Plaintiff's action is more than 2.5 years old and
is on the seventh iteration of his complaint. That is more
than enough time for Plaintiff to “specify names or
detailed descriptions, along with exact titles, of John Does
defendants, ” as Plaintiff was ordered to do. (Doc. No.
60.) John Doe defendants are thus dismissed.
asserts remaining defendants discarded his property (e.g.,
mail, artwork, hygiene items, clothing) without due process
and resulting in cruel-and-unusual punishment. However,
“a random and unauthorized deprivation of property
under color of state law . . . does not give rise to a §
1983 claim if there is an adequate state post-conviction
remedy.” Frazier v. Flores, 571 Fed.Appx. 673,
675 (10th Cir. 2014) (citing Hudson v. Palmer, 468
U.S. 517, 533 (1984).
claims fit under this rubric: First, he has not alleged
“his property was seized pursuant to a consistent
policy and not just a random, unauthorized act.”
Id. at 676. Second, there could be no hearing (in
keeping with due-process precepts) because “individual
correctional officers' alleged practice of arbitrarily
seizing inmates' property with scant justification is not
the type of ‘established state procedure' under
which the state can ‘predict precisely when the loss
will occur' and thus provide a hearing beforehand.”
Id. (quoting Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S.
527, 541 (1981)). Third, Plaintiff has not alleged that Utah
does not have options for him to pursue a remedy for