James E: Kyles v. Heineman et al
Filing
17
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - Plaintiff's Amended Complaint is dismissed without prejudice because it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Ordered by Chief Judge Laurie Smith Camp. (Copy mailed to pro se party) (TEL)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
JAMES E: KYLES,
Plaintiff,
v.
DAVID E. HEINEMAN, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO. 8:11CV260
MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER
This matter is before the court on its own motion. On October 24, 2011, the court
conducted an initial review of Plaintiff’s Complaint and found that the Complaint failed to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted. (Filing No. 7.) Specifically, the court
dismissed Plaintiff’s claims against numerous Defendants, and also gave Plaintiff the
opportunity to amend his complaint with respect to his claims against the remaining
Defendants. (Id. at CM/ECF p. 7.) As set forth below, Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint
suffers from the same defects as his original Complaint.
First, Plaintiff failed to amend his complaint to set forth specific facts supporting his
general allegation that Judges Barrett and Caniglia “totally lacked subject matter jurisdiction
over him.” See Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11-12 (1991),(holding judges are absolutely
immune from suits for damages arising from acts in their judicial capacities as long as such
actions were not taken in the complete absence of all jurisdiction). Accordingly, the court
finds that Judges Barrett and Caniglia are entitled to judicial immunity.
Second, even liberally construed, Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint suffers from the
same defects as his original Complaint with respect to his claims against Jon Bruning,
Martin Conboy, Jonathan Crosby, John Payne, Vaughn Cotton, David Heineman, and the
remaining Jane Does. On initial review, the court found that it could not determine which,
if any, federally cognizable civil rights Plaintiff alleged to have been deprived by these
Defendants. (Filing No. 7 at CM/ECF pp. 6-7.) In addition, Plaintiff had not set forth
sufficient facts for the court to reasonably conclude that Defendants had “violated their
oaths of office” or committed “overt acts of conspiracy.” (See Id. at CM/ECF pp. 29-37.)
With respect to these Defendants, Plaintiff still has not set forth enough factual allegations
to “nudge[] [his] claims across the line from conceivable to plausible,” and his claims “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.”). For these reasons, and for the reasons set forth in the court’s
October 24, 2011, Memorandum and Order, Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint fails to state
a claim upon which relief may be granted and is dismissed in its entirety.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint is dismissed
without prejudice because it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. A
separate judgment will be entered in accordance with this Memorandum and Order.
DATED this 1st day of February, 2012.
BY THE COURT:
s/Laurie Smith Camp
Chief 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.
2
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?