Rossmann v. Bell et al

Filing 6

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - IT IS ORDERED: Plaintiff shall have until 30 days from the date of this Memorandum and Order to file an amended complaint that clearly states 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, his claims against defendants will be dismissed without further notice. The clerk's office is directed to send to plaintiff a copy of the civil complaint form. The clerk&# 039;s office is directed to set a pro se case management deadline in this case using the following text: Check for amended complaint on June 23, 2014. 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. Ordered by Senior Judge Lyle E. Strom. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(TCL )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
BRUD ROSSMANN, Esquire,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
SUSAN BELL, JOHN DOE-1, JOHN )
DOE-2, JOHN DOE-3,
)
)
Defendants.
)
______________________________)

4:14CV3019

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Plaintiff filed his complaint in this matter on January
24, 2014 (Filing No. 1).

Plaintiff has 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, a resident of New York, brings this action
against Susan Bell (“Bell”), a resident of Nebraska.

He also

brings this action against persons he refers to collectively as
John Doe-1, John Doe-2, and John Doe-3 (Filing No. 1 at CM/ECF p.
1).
Plaintiff’s 48-page complaint, filed along with 187
pages of attachments, is incredibly difficult to decipher.

As

best as the Court can tell, plaintiff’s claims arise from the
foreclosure of real property located in Fairfax County, Virginia.

(See generally Filing No. 1 at CM/ECF pp. 1-48.)

Plaintiff

generally alleges that his “potentially Best in World IQ score”
caused him to be a target for the conversion of this property.
(Id. at CM/ECF pp. 10-11.)

Plaintiff alleges that Bell admitted

she was “partly responsible for the illegal targeting of
Plaintiff and for his false imprisonment in Fairfax County,
Virginia in 2004.”

(Id. at CM/ECF p. 9.)

Plaintiff further

alleges that, in order to effect this targeting, Bell enlisted
the help of the National Security Council and the Central
Intelligence Agency.

(Id. at CM/ECF pp. 9-10.)

Plaintiff seeks

$10,000,000.00 in money damages and other unspecified injunctive
and declaratory relief.
II.

(Id. at CM/ECF p. 48.)

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”
-2-

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.
Cir. 1985).

See Martin v. Sargent, 780 F.2d 1334, 1337 (8th

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

The Court has reviewed plaintiff’s complaint, keeping
in mind that complaints filed by pro se litigants are held to
less stringent standards than those applied to formal pleadings
drafted by lawyers.
(1972).

See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520

However, as set forth above, even pro se litigants must

comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Federal Rule

of Civil Procedure 8 requires that every complaint contain “a
short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader
is entitled to relief” and that “each allegation . . . be simple,
-3-

concise, and direct.”

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), (d)(1). A

complaint must state enough to “‘give the defendant fair notice
of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’”
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (quoting Twombly, 550
U.S. at 555).

Here, plaintiff’s complaint fails to meet this

minimal pleading standard.

In addition, the facts alleged appear

to be factually frivolous.

See Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25,

32-33 (1992) (stating a court may dismiss a claim as factually
frivolous if the facts alleged are clearly baseless, a category
encompassing allegations that are fanciful, fantastic, and
delusional).
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
defendants.

Plaintiff should be mindful to clearly explain what

defendants did to him, when defendants did it, how Defendants’
actions harmed him, and what specific legal rights plaintiff
believes defendants violated.

If plaintiff fails to file an

amended complaint in accordance with this Memorandum and Order,
his claims against defendants will be dismissed without prejudice
and without further notice.

The Court reserves the right to

conduct further review of plaintiff’s claims pursuant to

-4-

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) after he addresses the matters set forth
in this Memorandum and Order.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED:
1.

Plaintiff shall have until 30 days from the date

of this Memorandum and Order to file an amended complaint that
clearly states 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, his claims against
defendants will be dismissed without further notice.
2.

The clerk’s office is directed to send to

plaintiff a copy of the civil complaint form.
3.

The clerk’s office is directed to set a pro se

case management deadline in this case using the following text:
Check for amended complaint on June 23, 2014.
4.

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 22nd day of May, 2014.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Lyle E. Strom
____________________________
LYLE E. STROM, Senior Judge
United States District Court
* 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.

-5-