Money v. United States Marshalls et al

Filing 6

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER- Plaintiffs 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 Judge John M. Gerrard. (Copy emailed to pro se party)(MKR)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
KAYLA MONEY,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
UNITED STATES MARSHALS,
)
FEDERAL BUREAU OF
)
INVESTIGATION, and JOHN DOES, )
)
Defendants.
)
)

8:12CV396

MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER

This matter is before the court on initial review of Plaintiff’s Complaint. (Filing
No. 1.) Plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis in this matter.
(Filing No. 5.) Accordingly, 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 named the United States Marshal’s Service and the Federal Bureau of
Investigation as Defendants. (Filing No. 1 at CM/ECF p. 1.) Plaintiff’s allegations are
nonsensical. As best the court can tell, Plaintiff alleges that on November 4, 2012, she
was inside her home when she noticed cameras on her windows, people on her balcony,
and the sound of drilling. (Id.) In addition, on this date, “gases were being entered into
her home” for six hours, which caused her to seize, and caused her dogs to become
lethargic and disoriented. (Id. at CM/ECF p. 2.) In spite of these disruptions, the
federal agents, who were “camouflaged in the bushes along the home,” did not render
assistance. (Id. at CM/ECF pp. 2-3.) Plaintiff seeks monetary relief, but does not
specify the amount she seeks.

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 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).
Liberally construed, Plaintiff here alleges federal constitutional claims. To state
a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege a violation of rights protected
by the United States Constitution or created by federal statute and also must show that
the alleged deprivation was caused by conduct of a person acting 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).

2

III.

DISCUSSION OF CLAIMS

The court has carefully reviewed the Complaint. As set forth above, Plaintiff’s
allegations are difficult to decipher. The allegations 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 that 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). That is, Plaintiff does not allege that Defendants 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). Indeed, 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). Furthermore, given that
Plaintiff has failed to provide any factual or legal basis for any sort of claim, the court
finds that providing Plaintiff with an opportunity to amend her Complaint would be
futile.
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.

3

DATED this 23rd day of January, 2013.
BY THE COURT:
s/ John M. Gerrard
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.
4