Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Krider v. State Officer

United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania

February 20, 2014

KYLE KRIDER, Plaintiff,
v.
STATE OFFICER, et al., Defendants.

MEMORANDUM

JOHN E. JONES, III, District Judge.

THE BACKGROUND OF THE MEMORANDUM IS AS FOLLOWS:

Plaintiff Kyle Krider ("Plaintiff" or "Krider"), currently an inmate confined at the Rockview State Correctional Institution ("SCI Rockview") in Bellefonte, Pennsylvania, commenced this pro se action by filing a Complaint pursuant to the provisions of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 1). On January 23, 2014, this Court screened his Complaint pursuant 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). (Doc. 8). The Court dismissed the Complaint without prejudice as it failed to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and failed to name a proper defendant. ( Id. ). The Court granted Krider leave to file an amended complaint. ( Id. ).

On January 27, 2014, Krider filed a document entitled "Request Leave to File Amended Complaint into Federal Habeas Corpus Action 28 U.S.C. § 2241." (Doc. 9). In this document, Krider sought to reassert the same claims as in his original civil rights complaint, in the form of a habeas action. ( Id. ). In an Order dated February 4, 2014, the Court dismissed the Amended Complaint and granted Krider additional time to file an Amended Complaint.

On February 12, 2014, Krider filed a second Amended Complaint. (Doc. 11). This Amended Complaint is presently before the Court for screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Because Krider's Amended Complaint remains fundamentally flawed in numerous respects, for the reasons set forth below, we will dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint with prejudice.

II. PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED COMPLAINT

Krider's single-page, sparse Amended Complaint reads precisely as follows:

1. That he will suffer irreparable damages and that he has no adequate remedy at law.
2. He is entitled to relief.
3. He was asked by a police officer where do you get the cell-phone and bracelet from.
4. Plaintiff stated that he found it on the ground.
5. Likelihood of success on merits of claim that fingerprinting requirement unnecessarily impeded First Amendment freedom of speech and served little or no legitimate governmental purpose.
6. That he would suffer irreparable injury with no ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.