Woolman v. Bryan LGH et al
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - Plaintiff's Complaint (filing no. 1 ) is dismissed without prejudice. Ordered by Senior Judge Richard G. Kopf. (Copy mailed to pro se party) (TEL)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
MICHAEL B. WOOLMAN,
BRYAN LGH, Community Mental
Health, DR. QUINN, and SEAN
Plaintiff filed his Complaint in this matter on July 10, 2012. (Filing No. 1.)
Plaintiff was given leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (Filing No. 5.) The court now
conducts an initial review of Plaintiff’s claims to determine whether summary dismissal
is appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT
Plaintiff filed his Complaint against BryanLGH, Dr. Quinn, and Sean Fisher.
(Filing No. 1 at CM/ECF p. 1.) Plaintiff’s allegations are difficult to decipher. In their
entirety, they are:
BryanLGH , Community Mental Health, and I was taking ,This Drug
called Abillfy , Well , I got Kidney and Liver Failure ,From that drug. So
I stopped, taking it. Well She did not like that. So Unfortunately she sent
the BryanLGH , Mental Hospice unit after me. Well , they have not
stopped pushing drug in my apartment. They use a smelter unit from next
door. Well ,I Moved into the lodge a few month back, and two weeks
before ,’ The Bryan L G H , Mental Hospice Unit moved in. They have not
stopped Drugging me almost to death and more than a few times.
(Id. at CM/ECF p. 2.) Plaintiff seeks $10,000,000.00 in damages. (Id. at CM/ECF p.
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).
Pro se plaintiffs 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, 556 U.S. 662, 678
(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).
DISCUSSION OF CLAIMS
“If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the
court must dismiss the action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). Subject matter jurisdiction is
proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, commonly referred to as “diversity of citizenship”
jurisdiction. For purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1332, “diversity of citizenship” means that
“the citizenship of each plaintiff is different from the citizenship of each defendant.”
Ryan v. Schneider Natl. Carriers, Inc., 263 F.3d 816, 819 (8th Cir. 2001). In addition,
the amount in controversy must be greater than $75,000.00 for diversity of citizenship
jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).
Here, Plaintiff does not allege that his citizenship is different from the citizenship
of each Defendant. (Filing No. 1.) Indeed, he lists Lincoln, Nebraska, addresses for
himself and Defendants. Thus, Plaintiff has failed to establish diversity of citizenship
jurisdiction as a basis for jurisdiction in this matter.
Subject matter jurisdiction is also proper where a plaintiff asserts a “non-frivolous
claim of a right or remedy under a federal statute,” commonly referred to as “federal
question” jurisdiction. Northwest South Dakota Prod. Credit Ass’n v. Smith, 784 F.2d
323, 325 (8th Cir. 1986). Plaintiff does not set forth any specific actions taken by
Defendants that violate any constitutional right or support a claim under 42 U.S.C. §
1983 or any other federal statute. Keeper v. King, 130 F.3d 1309, 1314 (8th Cir. 1997).
In short, Plaintiff does not allege that Defendant 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 v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988); Buckley v. Barlow,
997 F.2d 494, 495 (8th Cir. 1993). As such, the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction,
and the Complaint is dismissed without prejudice.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: Plaintiff’s Complaint (filing no. 1) is
dismissed without prejudice. A separate Judgment will be entered in accordance with
this Memorandum and Order.
DATED this 28th day of August, 2012.
BY THE COURT:
Richard G. Kopf
Senior 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.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?