Woolman v. Lincoln Police Department et al

Filing 10

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER- Plaintiffs Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted and is dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2.) A separate judgment will be entered in accordance with this Memorandum and Order. All other pending motions are denied. Ordered by Judge Joseph F. Bataillon. (Copy mailed/e-mailed to pro se party)(MKR, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
MICHAEL B. WOOLMAN,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
LINCOLN POLICE DEPARTMENT )
and LANCASTER COUNTY
)
ATTORNEY OFFICE,
)
)
Defendants.
)

4:12CV3136

MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER

Plaintiff filed his Complaint in this matter on July 2, 2012. (Filing No. 1.)
Plaintiff has previously been given leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (Filing No.
8.) The court now conducts an initial review of the Complaint to determine whether
summary dismissal is appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
I.

SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT

Plaintiff filed his Complaint on July 2, 2012, against two Nebraska municipal
agencies. (Filing No. 1 at CM/ECF p. 1.) Plaintiff’s allegations are nonsensical and
sparse. Plaintiff includes a single paragraph that states that he attempted to send
something to the United States Supreme Court from a Fed Ex location, but that the
document didn’t arrive due to “illegal inspection” by an officer in an “unmarked car.”
(Id. at CM/ECF p. 2.) Plaintiff also states that he is “in danger” due to “Threats From
The State Department.” (Id.)
II.

APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS ON INITIAL REVIEW

The court is required to review in forma pauperis complaints to determine
whether summary dismissal is appropriate. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). The court

must dismiss a complaint or any portion thereof that states a frivolous or malicious
claim, that fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seeks
monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B).
A pro se plaintiff must set forth enough factual allegations to “nudge[] their
claims across the line from conceivable to plausible,” or “their complaint must be
dismissed” for failing to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Bell Atlantic
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 569-70 (2007); see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct.
1937, 1950 (2009) (“A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual
content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is
liable for the misconduct alleged.”). Regardless of whether a plaintiff is represented
or is appearing pro se, the plaintiff’s complaint must allege specific facts sufficient
to state a claim. See Martin v. Sargent, 780 F.2d 1334, 1337 (8th Cir. 1985).
However, a pro se plaintiff’s allegations must be construed liberally. Burke v. North
Dakota Dep’t of Corr. & Rehab., 294 F.3d 1043, 1043-44 (8th Cir. 2002) (citations
omitted).
Liberally construed, Plaintiff here alleges federal constitutional claims. To state
a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege a violation of rights protected
by the United States Constitution or created by federal statute and also must show that
the alleged deprivation was caused by conduct of a person acting under color of state
law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988); Buckley v. Barlow, 997 F.2d 494, 495
(8th Cir. 1993).
III.

DISCUSSION OF CLAIMS

The court has carefully reviewed the Complaint. As set forth above, Plaintiff’s
allegations are difficult to decipher. The allegations which the court can decipher do
not nudge Plaintiff’s claims across the line from conceivable to plausible. Plaintiff
2

does not set forth any specific actions taken by Defendants which violate any
constitutional right or support a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Keeper v. King, 130
F.3d 1309, 1314 (8th Cir. 1997). In short, Plaintiff does not allege that Defendants
deprived him of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States or
that the alleged deprivation was committed under “color of state law.” West, 487 U.S.
at 48; Buckley, 997 F.2d at 495. Even with the most liberal construction, Plaintiff’s
Complaint does not include “sufficient facts to support the claims advanced,” and is,
at best, frivolous. Stringer v. St. James R-1 School Dist., 446 F.3d 799, 802 (8th Cir.
2006). This matter is therefore dismissed.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:
1.
Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted and is dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
2.
A separate judgment will be entered in accordance with this
Memorandum and Order.
3.

All other pending motions are denied.

DATED this 14th day of August, 2012.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Joseph F. Bataillon
United States District Judge
*This opinion may contain hyperlinks to other documents or Web sites. The U.S. District
Court for the District of Nebraska does not endorse, recommend, approve, or guarantee any third
parties or the services or products they provide on their Web sites. Likewise, the court has no
agreements with any of these third parties or their Web sites. The court accepts no responsibility for
the availability or functionality of any hyperlink. Thus, the fact that a hyperlink ceases to work or
directs the user to some other site does not affect the opinion of the court.

3