Tyler v. Bazis et al
Filing
8
MEMORANDUM OPINION on Initial Review of the complaint. Ordered by Senior Judge Lyle E. Strom. A separate order will be entered in accordance with this memorandum opinion. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(MKR)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
BILLY TYLER,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
SUSAN BAZIS, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
______________________________)
8:12CV178
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff filed his complaint in this matter on May 17,
2012 (Filing No. 1).
Plaintiff has previously been given leave
to proceed in forma pauperis (Filing No. 5).
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 on May 17, 2012, against
a Nebraska District Court Judge and four employees of Douglas
County, Nebraska (Filing No. 1 at CM/ECF p. 1).
allegations are nearly indecipherable.
Plaintiff’s
The complaint consists
of, at best, nonsensical and illegible statements regarding a
non-party named “Marcia Stacy,” and defendants’ refusal to accept
pleadings from her in her state-court case because Ms. Stacy had
been “seen . . . talking to Plaintiff.”
(Id. at CM/ECF pp. 1-2.)
Plaintiff alleges that defendants violated his constitutional
rights because he had not assisted Ms. Stacy with her motion and
because the defendants would not give plaintiff information
regarding Ms. Stacy’s state-court case.
(Id. at CM/ECF pp. 2-6.)
Plaintiff requests “100,000,000 damages” and injunctive relief.
(Id. at CM/ECF p. 9.)
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)(2).
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).
A pro se plaintiff 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).
-2-
III. DISCUSSION OF CLAIMS
The Court has carefully reviewed the complaint.
As set
forth above, plaintiff’s allegations are nearly impossible to
decipher.
The allegations which the Court can decipher do not
nudge any claim across the line from conceivable to plausible.
Plaintiff does not set forth any specific actions taken by
defendants which violate any constitutional right or support a
claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
1314 (8th Cir. 1997).
Keeper v. King, 130 F.3d 1309,
In short, plaintiff does not allege that
defendants deprived him of a right secured by the Constitution or
laws of the United States or that the alleged deprivation was
committed under “color of state law.”
Buckley, 997 F.2d at 495.
West, 487 U.S. at 48;
Even with the most liberal
construction, plaintiff’s complaint does not include “sufficient
facts to support the claims advanced,” and is, at best,
frivolous.
Stringer v. St. James R-1 School Dist., 446 F.3d 799,
802 (8th Cir. 2006).
Further, to the extent plaintiff requests injunctive
relief in the form of an order requiring defendants to permit him
access to court filings in pending state-court cases, this Court
will not grant such relief.
Indeed, this Court is mindful of its
obligation to promote comity between state and federal judicial
bodies and will “abstain from exercising jurisdiction in cases
where equitable relief would interfere with pending state
-3-
proceedings.”
2004).
Aaron v. Target Corp., 357 F.3d 768, 774 (8th Cir.
Courts use the doctrine developed in Younger v. Harris to
carry out this policy.
401 U.S. 37 (1971).
Under Younger, a
federal court should abstain from jurisdiction “‘when (1) there
is an ongoing state judicial proceeding which (2) implicates
important state interests, and when (3) that proceeding affords
an adequate opportunity to raise the federal questions
presented.’”
Norwood v. Dickey, 409 F.3d 901, 903 (8th Cir.
2005) (quoting Fuller v. Ulland, 76 F.3d 957, 959 (8th
Cir.1996)).
Here, plaintiff has not alleged, nor demonstrated,
that the Douglas County, Nebraska, District Court proceedings
will not provide him with the opportunity to raise any potential
constitutional claim relating to defendants’ unwillingness to
accept pleadings from plaintiff or other non-parties.
Thus, even
if plaintiff stated a claim for relief, which he does not, the
Court would abstain from exercising jurisdiction over plaintiff’s
claim.
A separate order will be entered in accordance with this
memorandum opinion.
DATED this 20th day of July, 2012.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Lyle E. Strom
____________________________
LYLE E. STROM, Senior Judge
United States District Court
-4-
* 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-
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?