Woolman v. Ward of Lancaster County et al
Filing
10
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - Plaintiff shall have until July 26, 2013, to amend his Complaint to clearly state a claim upon which relief may be granted against Defendants in accordance with this Memorandum and Order. If Plaintiff fails to file an amended c omplaint, Plaintiffs claims against Defendants will be dismissed without further notice. Plaintiff shall keep the court informed of his current address at all timeswhile this case is pending. Failure to do so may result in dismissal without furthernotice. ***Pro Se Case Management Deadlines: ( Pro Se Case Management Deadline set for 7/26/2013: Check for amended complaint on July26, 2013) Ordered by Judge Joseph F. Bataillon. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(MKR)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
MICHAEL B. WOOLMAN,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
WARD OF LANCASTER
)
COUNTY, and CEDARS WARD OF )
ADOPTIONS,
)
)
Defendants.
)
4:13CV3036
MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER
Plaintiff filed his Complaint in this matter on February 19, 2013. (Filing No.
1.) Plaintiff has previously been given leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 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 against “Ward of Lancaster County and Cedars
Ward of Adoptions.” (Filing No. 1. at CM/ECF p. 1.) Plaintiff is a nonprisoner who
resides in Lincoln, Nebraska. Plaintiff’s Complaint is entitled a “Stipulation for
Protective & Restraining Order.” (Id.) In it, Plaintiff alleges that the “parties” have
stipulated for “an order pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c),” states that his “current job”
is “Attorney At Law,” and submits himself “to the jurisdiction of the United States
District Court for the District of Nebraska for the purpose of enforcing or otherwise
providing relief relating to the Protective & Restraining Order.” (Id. at CM/ECF pp.
6-7.) Plaintiff’s Complaint contains no allegations against Ward of Lancaster County
or Cedars Ward of Adoptions.
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). 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).
III. DISCUSSION OF CLAIMS
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 requires that pleadings contain “short and
plain statement[s]” of the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction and of the claim
showing that the Plaintiff is entitled to relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. Even when liberally
construed, Plaintiff’s Complaint raises no claims and makes no allegations against
Defendants in this matter. (Filing No. 1.) Thus, Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to state
a claim upon which relief may be granted.
However, on the court’s own motion, Plaintiff shall have until July 26, 2013,
to file an amended complaint that sufficiently describes his claims against
2
Defendants. Plaintiff should be mindful to explain what each Defendant did to him,
when the Defendant did it, how the Defendant’s action harmed him, and what specific
legal right Plaintiff believes the Defendants violated. If Plaintiff fails to file an
amended complaint in accordance with this Memorandum and Order, Plaintiff’s
claims against Defendants will be dismissed without prejudice without further notice.
Accordingly,
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:
1.
Plaintiff shall have until July 26, 2013, to amend his Complaint to clearly
state a claim upon which relief may be granted against Defendants in accordance with
this Memorandum and Order. If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint,
Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants will be dismissed without further notice.
2.
The Clerk of the court is directed to set a pro se case management
deadline in this case using the following text: Check for amended complaint on July
26, 2013.
3.
Plaintiff shall keep the court informed of his current address at all times
while this case is pending. Failure to do so may result in dismissal without further
notice.
DATED this 25th day of June, 2013.
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
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?