Woolman v. Supersaver Grocery Store

Filing 5

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - Case Numbers 4:15-cv-03091-JMG-PRSE, 4:15-cv-03092- JMG-PRSE, and 4:15-cv-03094-JMG-PRSE are dismissed without prejudice. All pending motions are denied as moot. The court will enter separate Judgments in accordance with these Memoranda and Orders. Ordered by Judge John M. Gerrard. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(GJG)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA MICHAEL B. WOOLMAN, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) SUPERSAVER GROCERY STORE, ) ) Defendant. ) MICHAEL B. WOOLMAN, Plaintiff, v. SHAFFERS COMMUNICATION, Defendant. MICHAEL B. WOOLMAN, Plaintiff, v. NEBRASKA BROADCASTERS ASSOCIATION, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 4:15CV3091 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER 4:15CV3092 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER 4:15CV3094 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Michael Woolman filed these actions in this court on August 7, 2015. He seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (4:15-cv-03091-JMG-PRSE at Filing No. 2; 4:15-cv-03092-JMG-PRSE at Filing No. 2; 4:15-cv-03094-JMG-PRSE at Filing No. 2.) The court will conduct an initial review of Woolman’s Complaints to determine whether summary dismissal is appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). I. 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 of it 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). Federal district courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. Federal district courts have original jurisdiction of civil actions where complete diversity of citizenship and an amount in excess of $75,000 (exclusive of interest and costs) in controversy exist. 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Federal district courts also “have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. II. DISCUSSION Each of Woolman’s Complaints in these actions are labeled “PETITION AND AFFIDAVIT TO OBTAIN HARASSMENT PROTECTION ORDER.” (4:15-cv-03091-JMG-PRSE at Filing No. 1; 4:15-cv-03092-JMG-PRSE at Filing No. 1; 4:15-cv-03094-JMG-PRSE at Filing No. 1.) Woolman seeks protection orders against the defendants—three private companies—in accordance with Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-311.09, which permits victims of harassment to obtain protection orders under Nebraska state law. Such petitions must be filed in Nebraska’s state courts. See Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 25-2740 and 28-311.09. Therefore, the court will dismiss Woolman’s Complaints for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted. However, the 2 court will dismiss the Complaints without prejudice to Woolman seeking protection orders as authorized by Nebraska law in Nebraska’s state courts. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: 1. Case Numbers 4:15-cv-03091-JMG-PRSE, 4:15-cv-03092-JMG-PRSE, and 4:15-cv-03094-JMG-PRSE are dismissed without prejudice. 2. All pending motions are denied as moot. 3. The court will enter separate Judgments in accordance with these Memoranda and Orders. DATED this 12th day of August, 2015. BY THE COURT: s/ John M. Gerrard 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?