Decory v. Pfiefle

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA
WESTERN DIVISION
WILLIAM DECORY,
Plaintiff,
vs.
CRAIGE A. PFIEFLE,1
Presiding Judge,
Defendant.
CIV. 20-05051-JLV
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA
PAUPERIS AND DISMISSING
COMPLAINT
On August 18, 2021, plaintiff William Decory filed a pro se civil rights
action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Docket 1). Mr. Decory is currently an inmate
at the Pennington County Jail. Id. at p. 3. He moves to proceed in forma
pauperis and provided a copy of his prisoner trust report. (Dockets 3 & 6).
The Prison Litigation Reform Act, 28 U.S.C. ' 1915, requires prisoners to
make an initial partial filing fee payment when possible. Determination of the
partial filing fee is calculated according to 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(b)(1), which
requires a payment of 20 percent of the greater of:
(A) the average monthly deposits to the prisoner=s account;
or
(B) the average monthly balance in the prisoner=s account
for the 6-month period immediately preceding the filing
of the complaint or notice of appeal.
1The court takes judicial notice that Judge Pfeifle’s first name is “Craig”
not “Craige.”
Case 5:21-cv-05051-CBK Document 8 Filed 09/13/21 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: <pageID>

2
In support of his motion, plaintiff provided a copy of his prisoner trust account
report signed by an authorized prison officer. (Docket 6). The report shows an
average monthly deposit for the past six months of $0, an average monthly
balance for the past six months of $0, and a current balance of $0. Id. In light
of this information, the court finds plaintiff is not required to make an initial
partial filing fee.
Under 28 U.S.C. ' 1915A, the court must review a prisoner complaint
and identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint if it is frivolous,
malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. This
screening process “applies to all civil complaints filed by [a] prisoner[],
regardless of payment of [the] filing fee.” Lewis v. Estes, 242 F.3d 375 at *1
(8th Cir. 2000) (unpublished) (citing Carr v. Dvorin, 171 F.3d 115, 116 (2d Cir.
1999)). “[A] complaint, containing as it does both factual allegations and legal
conclusions, is frivolous where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in
fact. . . . ' 1915(d)=s term ‘frivolous,’ when applied to a complaint, embraces not
only the inarguable legal conclusion, but also the fanciful factual allegation.”
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989).
Mr. Decory names Craige A. Pfeifle, the Presiding Circuit Judge of the
Seventh Judicial Circuit of South Dakota, as the defendant. (Docket 1 at p. 1).
Mr. Decory does not specify the capacity in which he sues Judge Pfeifle, nor
does he specify the relief sought. See id. at p. 1-2. Because Mr. Decory has
not specified in what capacity he is suing Judge Pfeifle, the court treats the
claims as only in his official capacity. See Egerdahl v. Hibbing Cmty. Coll., 72
F.3d 615, 619 (8th Cir. 1995); Nix v. Norman, 879 F.2d 429, 431 (8th Cir.
1989). Judge Pfeifle is an employee of the State of South Dakota.
Case 5:21-cv-05051-CBK Document 8 Filed 09/13/21 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: <pageID>

3
“A suit against a government officer in his official capacity is functionally
equivalent to a suit against the employing governmental entity.” Veatch v.
Bartels Lutheran Home, 627 F.3d 1254, 1257 (8th Cir. 2010). The Supreme
Court has stated, “a suit against a state official in his or her official capacity is
not a suit against the official but rather is a suit against the official's office.”
Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989) (citing Brandon v.
Holt, 469 U.S. 464, 471 (1985)). Thus, it is a suit against the state itself.
While “[§] 1983 provides a federal forum to remedy many deprivations of civil
liberties . . . it does not provide a federal forum for litigants who seek a remedy
against a State for alleged deprivations of civil liberties.” Id. at 66.
Mr. Decory sues Judge Pfeifle in his official capacity. The Eleventh
Amendment generally acts as a bar to suits against a state for money
damages unless the state has waived its sovereign immunity. Id. When
an official capacity claim is asserted for injunctive relief against a state
officer, the defense of qualified immunity does not apply. See Pearson v.
Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 242-43 (2009).
Mr. Decory does not specify the relief he seeks. (Docket 1 at p. 1-2). Mr.
Decory claims he attempted to impeach Judge Pfeifle on June 29, 2021, and
that he appealed a motion to the South Dakota Circuit Court for “economical
crimes” under 28 U.S.C. § 994(j). Id. at p. 1. Mr. Decory claims that he has
not been duly convicted and that he is innocent. Id. at p. 2.
Any claims for money damages against Judge Pfeifle are claims against
the State of South Dakota. The State of South Dakota has not waived its
sovereign immunity. To the extent Mr. Decory seeks to hold Judge Pfeifle liable
in his official capacity for money damages, the court finds Judge Pfeifle is
Case 5:21-cv-05051-CBK Document 8 Filed 09/13/21 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: <pageID>

4
protected by sovereign immunity and is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
As to any claims for injunctive relief, Mr. Decory does not state the injunctive
relief he seeks. Further, he provides no facts supporting his claims and he fails
to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Mr. Decory’s complaint is
dismissed without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i-ii) and
1915A(b)(1).
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis
(Docket 3) is granted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed without
prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and 1915A(b)(1) for failure
to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the institution having custody of
Mr. Decory is directed that whenever the amount in his trust account exceeds
$10, monthly payments that equal 20 percent of the funds credited to the
account the preceding month shall be forwarded to the United States District
Court Clerk=s Office pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(b)(2) until the filing fee of
$350 is paid in full.
Dated September 13, 2021.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Jeffrey L. Viken
JEFFREY L. VIKEN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 5:21-cv-05051-CBK Document 8 Filed 09/13/21 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: <pageID>