Jogaak v. Hanson

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
JOGAAK D. JOGAAK,a/k/a Jogaak Jogaak, 4:22-CV-04102-LLP
Plaintiff,
I9I5A SCREENING ORDER FOR
vs. DISMISSAL
SANDRA HOGLUND HANSON,Circuit Court
Judge, in her official capacity.
Defendant.
Plaintiff, Jogaak D. Jogaak, an inmate at the South Dakota State Penitentiary, filed a pro
se lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Doc. I.' He filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis and provided a prisoner trust account report. Docs. 3,4. Jogaak has also filed a motion
for subpoena, a motion for discovery, a motion for pretrial conference, and a motion to
consolidate cases. Docs. 10, 12, 13, 14. This Court granted Jogaak's motion to proceed in forma
pauperis on August 2, 2022, and required him to pay an initial partial filing fee of $13.34. Doc.
9. Jogaak has timely paid his initial filing fee. This Court will now screen Jogaak's complaint
under 28 U.S.C. § I915A.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
^ Jogaak filed a second civil complaint form in which he named the same defendant and made
similar allegations. See Doc. 15. In this second civil complaint form, Jogaak checked the box for
a Bivens claim, rather than a § 1983 claim. Id. at 3. Bivens actions are reserved for when a
federal official has violated a plaintiffs Constitutional rights. See Bivens v. Six Unknown Named
Agents ofFederal Bureau ofNarcotics,403 U.S. 388(I97I). Jogaak later submitted a document
in which he stated that he "filed document 15 in error." Doc. 17 at 3. This Court construes
Jogaak's second civil complaint form and attached document as a factual supplement to his
initial complaint but not as additional Bivens claims because Judge Sandra Hoglund Hanson is a
state official and not a federal official. See Doc. 15.
1
Case 4:22-cv-04102-LLP Document 22 Filed 11/23/22 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: <pageID>

Jogaak claims that Judge Sandra Hoglund Hanson ofthe Second Judicial Circuit ofthe
State of South Dakota "refused to hear [his] appeal." See Docket 1 at 4. He claims that Judge
Hanson "defeat[ed] in a perverse manner, the due course ofjustice in the state of[South Dakota]
with intent to deny [him]the equal protection ofthe laws as a citizen by ordering [his] habeas
corpus be denied." Id. He claims that Judge Hanson "oppressed [him] by illegally dismissing
[his] habeas petition before letting [him] be herd [sic]." Doc. 15 at 5. Jogaak alleges that Judge
Hanson was negligent and that she violated his Fourteenth Amendment rights. Doc. 1 at 4. He
alleges that his "confinement to the state" violates his Eighth Amendment rights. Id. at 5. He also
accuses Judge Hanson of gaming the system, legal abuse, legal malpractice, and judicial
misconduct. Doc. 16-1 at 2-4. Jogaak attaches an order from Judge Hanson in which she found
his habeas petition moot because he was on probation at the time and thus was not "committed,
detained, imprisoned, or restrained of his liberty" as required under South Dakota law. Doc. 18-1
at 7-8 (quoting Bostickv. Weber,692 N.W.2d 517,519(S.D. 2005)).
Jogaak claims that Judge Hanson has caused him depression and anxiety. Doc. 1 at 4-5.
He requests that "the defendant be seized and dealt with according to law." Id. at 7. He asks this
Court to subpoena documents filed in his state court habeas corpus petition. See id. He also asks
this Court for money damages for the violation of his rights. Doc. 5 at 2-3; Doc. 15 at 11.
LEGAL BACKGROUND
The court must assume as true all facts well pleaded in the complaint. Estate of
Rosenberg v. Crandell, 56 F.3d 35, 36(8th Cir. 1995). Pro se and civil rights complaints must be
liberally construed. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89,94(2007)(per curiam)(citation omitted);
Bediako v. Stein Mart, Inc., 354 F.3d 835,839(8th Cir. 2004)(citation omitted). Even with this
construction,"a pro se complaint must contain specific facts supporting its conclusions." Martin
Case 4:22-cv-04102-LLP Document 22 Filed 11/23/22 Page 2 of 5 PageID #: <pageID>

V. Sargent, 780 F.2d 1334, 1337(8th Cir. 1985)(citation omitted); see also Ellis v. City of
Minneapolis, 518 F. App'x 502, 504(8th Cir. 2013)(per curiam)(citation omitted).
A complaint "does not need detailed factual allegations ...[but] requires more than
labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not
do[.]" BellAtl. Corp. v. Twombly,550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)(internal citations omitted). If it does
not contain these bare essentials, dismissal is appropriate. See Beavers v. Lockhart, 755 F.2d 657,
663-64(8th Cir. 1985). Twombly requires that a complaint's "[fjactual allegations must be
enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level on the assumption that all ofthe
allegations in the complaint are true[.]" 550 U.S. at 555 (intemal citation omitted); see also
Abdullah v. Minnesota, 261 F. App'x 926,927(8th Cir. 2008)(per curiam)(noting that a
"complaint must contain either direct or inferential allegations respecting all material elements
necessary to sustain recovery under some viable legal theory"(citing Twombly, 550-U.S. at 553-
63)). Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the court must screen prisoner complaints and dismiss them if
they "(1)[are] frivolous, malicious, or fail[] to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or
(2)seek[] monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief." 28 U.S.C. §
1915A(b). The court will now assess each individual claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
DISCUSSION
I. Claims Against Judge Hanson
Jogaak claims that Judge Hanson violated his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights
when she dismissed his habeas petition without a hearing. See Doc. 1 at 4-5; Doc. 15 at 4; see
also Doc. 18-1 at 7-8. Judges are generally immune from suit if the judge had jurisdiction over
the party. See Stump v. Sparkman,435 U.S. 349, 356(1978)("[T]he necessary inquiry in
determining whether a defendantjudge is immune from suit is whether at the time he took the
Case 4:22-cv-04102-LLP Document 22 Filed 11/23/22 Page 3 of 5 PageID #: <pageID>

challenged action he had jurisdiction over the subject matter before him.")."A judge will not be
deprived of immunity because the action he took was in error, was done maliciously, or was in
excess of his authority; rather, he will be subject to liability only when he has acted in the 'clear
absence of all jurisdiction.'"Id. at 356-57(quoting Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 335, 351 (1871)).
Judges are immune from suit with two narrow exceptions. See Schottel v. Young,687 F.3d 370,
373(8th Cir. 2012)."First, a judge is not immune from liability for nonjudicial actions, i.e.,
actions not taken in the judge's judicial capacity. Second, a judge is not immune for actions,
though judicial in nature, taken in the complete absence of all jurisdiction." Id. (quoting Mireles
V. Waco,502 U.S. 9, 11-12(1991)).
These exceptions do not apply here. Judge Hanson's dismissal of Jogaak's state court
habeas petition was an action taken in her judicial capacity, and Jogaak has madcno showing ^
that Judge Hanson lacked jurisdiction over his petition. See Doc. 1 at 4-5. Thus, Jogaak's claims
again Judge Hanson are dismissed with prejudice under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(iii) and
1915A(b)(2).
11. Strike Under 28 U.S.C.§ 1915(g)
The court finds that Jogaak's complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted. Section 1915(g) states as follows;
In no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action or appeal ajudgment in a civil action
or proceeding under this section if the prisoner has, on 3 or more prior occasions,
while incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought an action or appeal in a court
ofthe United States that was dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious,
or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, unless the prisoner is
under imminent danger of serious physical injury.
28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). The Eighth Circuit has explained that "[djismissals based on immunity are
not among the types of dismissals listed as strikes in [§] 1915(g)[.]" Castillo-Alvarez v. Krukow,
Case 4:22-cv-04102-LLP Document 22 Filed 11/23/22 Page 4 of 5 PageID #: <pageID>

768 F.3d 1219,1220(8th Cir. 2014)(per curiam). Jogaak's complaint is dismissed based on
Judge Hanson's judieial immunity. Thus, this dismissal does not constitute a strike.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED:
1. That Jogaak's complaint. Doe. 1, is dismissed with prejudice under 28 U.S.C. §§
1915(e)(2)(B)(iii) and 1915A(b)(2).
2. That Jogaak's motion for subpoena, Doc. 10, is denied as moot.
3. That Jogaak's motion for discovery, Doc. 12, is denied as moot.
4. That Jogaak's motion for pretrial conference. Doc. 13, is denied as moot.
5. That Jogaak's motion to consolidate cases. Doc. 14, is denied as moot.
DATED November 2022.
lY THE COURT;
UtVl^Ul	ATTEST:
MATTHEW W.THELEN,CLERK V/awrence L. Piersol
United States District Judge
Case 4:22-cv-04102-LLP Document 22 Filed 11/23/22 Page 5 of 5 PageID #: <pageID>