Bawala v. city, state, FBI of Omaha et al

Filing 8

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - Plaintiff shall have until November 13, 2012, to amend his complaint to clearly state a claim upon which relief may be granted against defendants, in accordance with this Memorandum and Order. If plaintiff fails to file a su fficient amended complaint, plaintiff's complaint will be dismissed without further notice for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. In the event that plaintiff files an amended complaint, plaintiff shall restate the alle gations of the current complaint (Filing No. 1 ), and any new allegations. Failure to consolidate all claims into one document may result in the abandonment of claims. The Clerk of the court is directed to set a pro se case management deadline in this case using the following text: Check for amended complaint on November 13, 2012, and dismiss if none filed. Ordered by Senior Judge Lyle E. Strom. (Copy e-mailed to pro se party) (AOA) Modified on 10/12/2012 to correct language(AOA).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
SOUMAILA BAWALA,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
CITY, STATE, FBI OF OMAHA,
)
CITY, STATE, FBI OF NY,
)
HAITIAN PEOPLE, of building
)
3614 av k NY^1210, and RADIO )
AND TV OF OMAHA AND NY,
)
)
Defendants.
)
______________________________)

8:12CV280

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Plaintiff filed his complaint on August 8, 2012 (Filing
No. 1).

Plaintiff was given leave to proceed in forma pauperis

(Filing No. 6).

The Court now conducts an initial review of

plaintiff’s claims to determine whether summary dismissal is
appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
I.

SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT
Plaintiff is a nonprisoner.

He seeks relief from the

“Haitian people of building 3614,” “radio and tv” of Omaha and
New York City, and the “city, state, [and] FBI of Omaha and [New
York City].”

(Filing No. 1 at CM/ECF p. 1.)

allegations are nearly impossible to decipher.

Plaintiff’s
The allegations

the Court can decipher consist of, at best, nonsensical
statements about his life since September of 2011.

He alleges

that since September of 2011, he has not been free in his
telephone, internet, school, room, bath, city, or religious

practice; every word he has ever written has been published, even
though he has never written a book for publication; Haitian
people are controlling him; and he is being harassed by
journalists and local citizens.

(Id. at CM/ECF pp. 2-3.)

As

relief, plaintiff asks that the Court return his civil rights.
(Id. at CM/ECF p. 5.)
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).

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”
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, 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.”).

Regardless of

whether a plaintiff is represented or is appearing pro se, the
-2-

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 carefully reviewed the complaint.

The

allegations that 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 that
violate any constitutional right or support a claim under 42
U.S.C. § 1983.

West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988) (“To state

a claim under § 1983, a Plaintiff must allege the violation of a
right secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States,
and must show that the alleged deprivation was committed by a
person acting under color of state law.”)

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.”

Even with

the most liberal construction, plaintiff’s complaint does not
include sufficient facts to support the claims advanced and is,
at best, frivolous and nonsensical.

-3-

On the Court’s own motion, plaintiff shall have 30 days
in which to amend his complaint to sufficiently allege a claim
against defendants.

Any amended complaint shall restate the

allegations of plaintiff’s prior complaint (Filing No. 1), and
any new allegations.

Failure to consolidate all claims into one

document will result in the abandonment of claims.

If plaintiff

fails to file a sufficient amended complaint in accordance with
this Memorandum and Order, this matter will be dismissed without
prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted.
IT IS ORDERED:
1.

Plaintiff shall have until November 13, 2012, to

amend his complaint to clearly state a claim upon which relief
may be granted against defendants, in accordance with this
Memorandum and Order.

If plaintiff fails to file a sufficient

amended complaint, plaintiff’s complaint will be dismissed
without further notice for failure to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted.
2.

In the event that plaintiff files an amended

complaint, plaintiff shall restate the allegations of the current
complaint (Filing No. 1), and any new allegations.

Failure to

consolidate all claims into one document may result in the
abandonment of claims.

-4-

3.

The Clerk of the court is directed to set a pro se

case management deadline in this case using the following text:
Check for amended complaint on November 13, 2012, and dismiss if
none filed.
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.
5.
3) is denied.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Counsel (Filing No.
See Davis v. Scott, 94 F.3d 444, 447 (8th Cir.

1996) (“Indigent civil litigants do not have a constitutional or
statutory right to appointed counsel. . . . The trial court has
broad discretion to decide whether both the plaintiff and the
court will benefit from the appointment of counsel.”) (internal
quotation marks omitted).
DATED this 12th day of October, 2012.
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-