Woolman v. Tabitha et al
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - Plaintiff shall have until 30 days from the date of this Memorandum and Order to amend his Complaint to clearly state a claim upon which relief may be granted against the defendant in accordance with this Memorandum and Order. If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint, Plaintiffs claims against the defendant will be dismissed without further notice. Plaintiff shall keep the court informed of his current address at all times while this case is pending. Failure to d o so may result in dismissal without further notice. ***Pro Se Case Management Deadlines: ( Pro Se Case Management Deadline set for 10/17/2013: Check for amended complaint onOctober 17, 2013) Ordered by Senior Judge Richard G. Kopf. (Copy e-mailed to pro se party)(MKR)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
MR. MICHAEL B. WOOLMAN,
TABITHA, and HOSPIS & HEALTH )
Plaintiff filed his Complaint in this matter on June 11, 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 “Tabitha, Hospis & Health Care Services.”
(Filing No. 1 at CM/ECF p. 1.) Plaintiff is a nonprisoner who resides in Lincoln,
Nebraska. (Id. at CM/ECF p. 2.) Plaintiff’s Complaint is entitled a “Stipulation for
Protective Order.” (Id. at CM/ECF p. 6.) In it, Plaintiff alleges that the “parties” have
stipulated for “an order pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c).” (Id.) Further, Plaintiff
states that his “current job” is “Attorney At Law,” and he also states that he submits
himself “to the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the District of
Nebraska for the purpose of otherwise enforcing or providing relief relating to
Protective & Restraining Order.” (Id. at CM/ECF p. 11.) The Complaint contains no
allegations against the defendant or any individual.
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).
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, 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 the defendant
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 30 days from the date
of this Memorandum and Order to file an amended complaint that sufficiently
describes his claims against the defendant. Plaintiff should be mindful to explain what
the defendant did to him, when the defendant did it, how the defendant’s actions
harmed him, and what specific legal right Plaintiff believes the defendant violated.
If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint in accordance with this Memorandum
and Order, Plaintiff’s claims against the defendant will be dismissed without prejudice
and without further notice. Accordingly,
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:
Plaintiff shall have until 30 days from the date of this Memorandum and
Order to amend his Complaint to clearly state a claim upon which relief may be
granted against the defendant in accordance with this Memorandum and Order. If
Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint, Plaintiff’s claims against the defendant
will be dismissed without further notice.
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
October 17, 2013.
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
DATED this 17th day of September, 2013.
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?