Annamarie et al v. Electors for the State of Nebraska

Filing 4

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER that Plaintiff's Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted and is dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). A separate judgment will be entered in accordance with this Memorandum and Order. Ordered by Senior Judge Richard G. Kopf. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(ADB)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
ANNAMARIE, 619 OTHERS, and
30 OTHERS,
Plaintiffs,
v.
ELECTORS FOR THE STATE OF
NEBRASKA,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

8:12CV348

MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER

Plaintiff filed her Complaint in this matter on September 27, 2012. (Filing No.
1.) Plaintiff has previously been given leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (Filing
No. 3.) 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 her Complaint on September 27, 2012, purportedly on behalf of

herself and nearly 650 unknown individuals, and against the “Electors for the State
of Nebraska.” (Filing No. 1 at CM/ECF pp. 1-2.) Plaintiff’s allegations are nearly
impossible to decipher. The 52-page Complaint submitted by Plaintiff consists of, at
best, nonsensical and rambling statements regarding President Barack Obama’s
citizenship and his eligibility to be President of the United States. (Id.) Plaintiff states
that she “no longer” knows her last name because of President Obama’s “regime,” that
President Obama “did not stick to the rules even though he promised to do so,” and
that President Obama has violated the Constitution by being President.

(Id. at

CM/ECF pp. 1-52.) Plaintiff also details her various mental health issues in the state
of Florida and claims that President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had
some involvement in her treatment as well as disregarded “the over 600 helpless
victims of crime and fundamental rights abuses” in South Africa. (Id. at CM/ECF pp.

11-12.)
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). 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. As set forth above, Plaintiff’s

allegations are difficult to decipher. The allegations which the court can decipher do
not nudge Plaintiff’s claims 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. Keeper v. King, 130
F.3d 1309, 1314 (8th Cir. 1997). In short, Plaintiff does not allege that Defendants
2

deprived her 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.” West v. Atkins, 487
U.S. 42, 48 (1988); Buckley v. Barlow, 997 F.2d 494, 495 (8th Cir. 1993). Even with
the most liberal construction possible, Plaintiff’s Complaint does not include
“sufficient facts to support the claims advanced,” and is, at best, frivolous and
nonsensical. Stringer v. St. James R-1 School Dist., 446 F.3d 799, 802 (8th Cir.
2006). This matter is therefore dismissed.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:
1.

Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be

granted and is dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
2.

A separate judgment will be entered in accordance with this

Memorandum and Order.
DATED this 20 th day of November, 2012.
BY THE COURT:
Richard G. Kopf
Senior 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