Bordeaux v. Carson et al.; Bordeaux v. State of South Dakota et al.; Bordeaux v. South Dakota State Women's Prison

Summary

This opinion and order addresses pro se complaints filed by Rochelle Rowane Bordeaux and LaChara Marie Bordeaux in four related actions in the District of South Dakota. The court grants the plaintiffs leave to proceed in forma pauperis, waives their initial partial filing fees, and explains their continuing obligations to pay the filing fees under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. The court also conducts screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, addressing claims involving public defenders, alleged constitutional violations, prior criminal sentences, and prison-mail restrictions.

Holdings

1. A prisoner who commences a civil action while incarcerated remains responsible for the full filing fee under the PLRA even if released before the court rules on the in forma pauperis motion; the court may waive the initial partial filing fee when the prisoner lacks assets or means to pay it.
2. Rochelle's claims against the public defenders failed because her requested relief—suspension or professional discipline—was not relief the court could grant; her official-capacity claims also failed for lack of allegations of a municipal policy or custom, and her individual-capacity claims for injunctive relief failed to state a claim.
3. Rochelle's § 1983 claims challenging the validity or duration of her prior sentences were barred by Heck v. Humphrey because success would necessarily imply the invalidity of those sentences.
4. Rochelle failed to state a selective-enforcement or class-of-one equal-protection claim because she alleged no suspect classification, discriminatory effect or purpose, differential treatment from similarly situated persons, or absence of a rational basis.
5. The South Dakota State Women's Prison is an arm of the State of South Dakota and is immune from the plaintiffs' § 1983 claims under the Eleventh Amendment, including claims seeking injunctive relief.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the plaintiffs satisfied the requirements to proceed in forma pauperis under the Prison Litigation Reform Act after Rochelle's release from custody.
2. Whether Rochelle's claims against public defenders stated a claim under § 1983 or otherwise sought relief available from the defendants.
3. Whether Rochelle's challenge to prior sentences was barred by Heck v. Humphrey.
4. Whether Rochelle stated a selective-enforcement or class-of-one equal-protection claim based on alleged arrests, harassment, and repeated traffic stops.
5. Whether claims concerning withheld inmate mail could proceed against the South Dakota State Women's Prison, or were barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Disposition

dismissed