Moore v. Cartwright

Filing 10

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - This case is dismissed with prejudice. The court will enter judgment by separate document. Ordered by Senior Judge Richard G. Kopf. (Copy mailed to pro se party) (KLF)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
MAURICE MOORE,
Plaintiff,

4:17CV3022

vs.
JAMIE CARTWRIGHT, Lancaster
County Dept. Correction Cult Enforcer;

MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER

Defendant.
Plaintiff filed a Complaint on February 17, 2017. (Filing No. 1.) He has been
given leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (Filing No. 8.) The court now conducts
an initial review of Plaintiff’s Complaint to determine whether summary dismissal
is appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
I. SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT
Plaintiff was in custody at the Lancaster County Jail in Lincoln, Nebraska at
the time he filed his Complaint. (Filing No. 1.) In his Complaint, Plaintiff sought a
harassment protection order pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-311.09 against
Defendant Jamie Cartwright (“Cartwright”), a deputy at the Lancaster County Jail.
Plaintiff wanted the order to prohibit Cartwright “from imposing any restraints
upon [his] liberty; harassing, threatening, assaulting, molesting or attacking or
disturbing [his] peace.” (Id. at CM/ECF p. 1.) Plaintiff claimed that Cartwright
“and other cult followers” illegally confined him so that they could have inmate
gangs threaten his life in retaliation for his pending suit against “former director
and cult leader Michael Thurber.” (Id. at CM/ECF pp. 2-3.) Plaintiff is no longer in
custody. (See Docket Sheet.)

II. APPLICABLE STANDARDS OF REVIEW
The court is required to review prisoner and in forma pauperis complaints
seeking relief against a governmental entity or an officer or employee of a
governmental entity to determine whether summary dismissal is appropriate. See
28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e) and 1915A. 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); 28 U.S.C. §
1915A(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.” 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.”).
“The essential function of a complaint under the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure is to give the opposing party ‘fair notice of the nature and basis or
grounds for a claim, and a general indication of the type of litigation involved.’”
Topchian v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 760 F.3d 843, 848 (8th Cir. 2014)
(quoting Hopkins v. Saunders, 199 F.3d 968, 973 (8th Cir. 1999)). However, “[a]
pro se complaint must be liberally construed, and pro se litigants are held to a
lesser pleading standard than other parties.” Topchian, 760 F.3d at 849 (internal
quotation marks and citations omitted).
III. DISCUSSION
Liberally construed, Plaintiff requests injunctive relief against Cartwright.
Because Plaintiff is no longer in custody at the Lancaster County Jail where
Cartwright is employed, his requested relief is moot. See similarly, Randolph v.
2

Rodgers, 253 F.3d 342, 345-46 (8th Cir. 2001) (denying prisoner’s requested
prospective injunctive relief as to several employees of correctional facility in
which prisoner was no longer incarcerated because those employees had no
authority to execute any granted injunctive relief at the prisoner’s present facility).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:
1.

This case is dismissed with prejudice.

2.

The court will enter judgment by separate document.

Dated this 24th day of April, 2017.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Richard G. Kopf
Senior United States District Judge

3