Decory v. Pfiefle

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT £ 8 liVJ
DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA
WESTERN DIVISION
WILLIAM MARTIN ARDENE DECORY, 5:2I-CV-0505I-CBK
Plaintiff,
vs.
ORDER
CRAIGE A. PFIEFLE, Presiding Judge, and
ROBERTO A. LANGE,Chief Judge;
Defendants.
Plaintiff, a prisoner, filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against South
Dakota Circuit Court Judge Craig A. Pfeifle arising out of his involvement, or rather,
refusal to be involved, in plaintiffs many state court criminal cases. Upon initial review
by the Hon. Jeffrey L. Viken, the complaint against Judge Pfeifle was dismissed on
September 13, 2021, for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Prior
to the entry ofthe September 13, 2021, order, plaintiff filed an amended complaint
seeking to impeach United States District Judge Roberto A. Lange for plaintiffs
"unconstitutional prosecution" in a federal criminal case(which was not assigned to
Judge Lange) and various federal civil cases filed by plaintiff(one of which was assigned
to Judge Lange). The amended complaint was not addressed in the order of dismissal.
The order of dismissal was mailed to plaintiff at the last known address he
provided to the Clerk of Courts. The order was returned as undeliverable. On October
IS, 2021, plaintiff provided the Clerk of Court a new address. The order was resent to
the new address and was also returned as undeliverable. On October 28, 2021, the mail
was resent to another address found from correspondence located in another file. On
November 5, 2021, petitioner filed a motion to extend the time to file a notice of appeal.
It appears that plaintiff did not timely receive notice of the dismissal of the
original complaint in this case due to issues with his address. However, as set forth
Case 5:21-cv-05051-CBK Document 18 Filed 04/28/22 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>

below, his motion to file a late appeal has now become moot as I find that the amended
complaint against both defendants should be dismissed.
Other than in criminal cases,"[a]n informa pauperis litigant's access to the courts
is a matter of privilege, not of right, and should not be used to abuse the process ofthe
courts." Williams v. MeKenzie. 834 F.2d 152, 154(8th Cir. 1987). I must screen the
plaintiffs claims to determine whether this action
(i) is frivolous or malicious;
(ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or
(iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.
28U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
Pursuant to the Doctrine of Judicial immunity a "judge is immune from suit,
including suits brought under section 1983 to recover for alleged deprivation of civil
rights, in all but two narrow sets of circumstances." Schottel v. Young.687 F.3d 370,
373 (8th Cir. 2012). Judicial immunity is overcome only where the alleged actions are
"not taken in the Judge's judicial capacity" or were "taken in the complete absence of all
jurisdiction." Mireles v. Waco. 502 U.S. 9, 11-12, 112 S.Ct. 286, 288, 116 L.Ed.2d 9
(1991). Plaintiff has failed to allege any action by the judges that was nonjudieial in
nature or taken without jurisdiction. Indeed, plaintiffs claims against the defendant
judges is that they, in their supervisory capacity as presiding and chiefjudge, failed to
intervene in plaintiffs pending federal and state court civil and criminal cases. The
judges are immune from suit in this case. Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted against both defendants.
In an effort to curb the flood of non-meritorious claims filed by prisoners.
Congress passed the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995("PLRA"), 110 Stat. 1321-71,
to "filter out the bad claims and facilitate consideration ofthe good." Jones v. Bock. 549
U.S. 199, 203-04, 127 S.Ct. 910, 914, 166 L.Ed.2d 798(2007). The PLRA introduced a
three strikes provision which provides:
In no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action or appeal a judgment 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
Case 5:21-cv-05051-CBK Document 18 Filed 04/28/22 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>

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). "In other words, for most three strikers, all future filing fees
become payable in full upfront." Bruce v. Samuels. U.S. , , 136 S.Ct. 627,
630, 193 L.Ed.2d496(2016).
I have determined that this matter is frivolous and fails to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted. The dismissal ofthis case counts as a strike under the PLRA.
Whether this is a first, second, third, or other strike is not yet apparent.
Now,therefore,
IT IS ORDERED:
1. Plaintiffs motion. Doc. 15,to extend the time to file an appeal is denied as
moot.
2. Plaintiffs amended complaint is dismissed as to both defendants pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). This dismissal counts as a strike pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(g). /
DATED this day April, 2022.
BY THE COURT:
CHARLES B. KORNMANN
United States District Judge
Case 5:21-cv-05051-CBK Document 18 Filed 04/28/22 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>