United States District Court, D. Minnesota
Plaintiff David Richard Kostuch, pro se.
MEMORANDUM OF LAW & ORDER
MICHAEL J. DAVIS UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE.
above-entitled matter comes before the Court upon the Report
and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Hildy
Bowbeer. On May 20, 2019, Magistrate Judge Bowbeer issued a
Report and Recommendation recommending that the Complaint
[Docket No. 1] be dismissed without prejudice and the
Application to Proceed in District Court without Prepaying
Fees or Costs (“IFP Application”) [Docket No. 2]
be denied as moot. [Docket No. 4] On June 4, 2019, Plaintiff
David Richard Kostuch filed a Request for Council [sic]
[Docket No. 5] and a Request for Extra Time [Docket No. 6].
On June 28, 2019, the Court denied Plaintiff's request
for appointment of counsel, granted Plaintiff's request
for extra time, and allowed Plaintiff until July 24, 2019 to
file his objections to the Report and Recommendation. [Docket
has not filed any objection to the Report and Recommendation.
The Court has conducted a de novo review upon the record and
adopts the Report and Recommendation.
9, 2019, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint. [Docket No. 8]
The Court will separately consider Plaintiff's IFP
Application as it relates to the Amended Complaint. As
explained in the Report and Recommendation, an IFP
application will be denied, and an action dismissed, when an
IFP applicant has filed a complaint that fails to state a
cause of action on which relief may be granted. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii); Atkinson v. Bohn, 91 F.3d
1127, 1128 (8th Cir. 1996); see also Carter v.
Schafer, 273 Fed.Appx. 581, 582 (8th Cir. 2008)
(“[T]he provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) apply to
all persons proceeding IFP and are not limited to prisoner
suits, and the provisions allow dismissal without
Court has carefully reviewed Plaintiff's Amended
Complaint, in which Plaintiff states that he will “drop
the fourteenth amendment claim” and only assert a claim
“under the thirteenth amendment  of forced
labor.” (Am. Compl. at 6.) Plaintiff also mentions
“a trade secret theft case.” (Id. at 5.)
Plaintiff claims that he is in “virtual involuntary
servitude” (id. at 7), related to being an inventor,
medical treatment, and feeling constant pain (id. at 1-2,
5-6). He asserts that he has been wronged by various
relatives and by medical providers at Regions Hospital and
“believe[s] this is grounds to investigate and other
health institutions in Minnesota, ” thus naming various
other entities as defendants in the Amended Complaint, such
as the Mayo Clinic Health System and the U.S. Department of
Health & Human Services. (Id. at 6, 11-12.)
(Plaintiff also mentions Anoka Metro Regional Treatment
Center in the Amended Complaint (id. at 6); however,
he does not name Anoka Metro Regional Treatment Center as a
Defendant; nor does he identify any other named Defendant as
being associated with Anoka Metro Treatment Center.) As
explained in the Report and Recommendation, Plaintiff still
fails to identify an implementing statute for his Thirteenth
Amendment claim. Section 1983 cannot apply because nothing in
the Amended Complaint suggests that any Defendant that
allegedly took any action related to his involuntary
servitude - Plaintiff's relatives, doctors, or other
named individuals - acted under color of state law.
Plaintiff's assertion that a doctor acts under color of
law because he or she has a license to practice is not
correct. (Id. at 6.)
the Amended Complaint is incomprehensible and does not state
a cause of action on which relief may be granted. “The
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require litigants to
formulate their pleadings in an organized and comprehensible
manner. Even pro se litigants are obligated to plead specific
facts and proper jurisdiction and must abide by the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure; however, plaintiff has failed to do
so in this case.” Clark v. Wake Forest Univ.,
No. 4:10CV200 MLM, 2010 WL 1038530, at *2 (E.D. Mo. Mar. 17,
2010) (citations omitted). The Court has liberally construed
Plaintiff's Amended Complaint; however, it is not
possible to glean the basis for Plaintiff's claim against
any Defendant. The Amended Complaint does not “contain
sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim
to relief that is plausible on its face.” Zutz v.
Nelson, 601 F.3d 842, 848 (8th Cir. 2010) (citation
both the original Complaint and the Amended Complaint fail to
state a cause of action on which relief may be granted and
will be dismissed without prejudice. Therefore,
Plaintiff's IFP application is denied as moot.
based upon the files, records, and proceedings
herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. The Complaint and Amended Complaint are
DISMISSED without prejudice.
2. Plaintiff David Richard Kostuch's Application to
Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs
[Docket No. 2] is DENIED as moot.
JUDGMENT BE ...