Barfield v. Graves et al
Filing
6
MEMORANDUM OPINION - Plaintiff's complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted and will be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). A separate order and judgment will be entered in accordance with this Memorandum Opinion. Ordered by Senior Judge Lyle E. Strom. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(AOA)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
TERRIJANA BARFIELD,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
ETTA GRAVES, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
______________________________)
8:13CV260
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff filed her complaint in this matter on August
21, 2013 (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 her complaint against Etta Graves,
Lesley Douglas, Jane Does, Judge Barret, and Joseph Nant (Filing
No. 1 at CM/ECF p. 1).
indecipherable.
Plaintiff’s allegations are nearly
As best as the Court can tell, plaintiff alleges
that she “filed for pro se” in two criminal cases in the County
Court of Douglas County, Nebraska.
(Id. at CM/ECF p. 1.)
Thereafter, Defendant Lesley Douglas, a county administrator,
appointed an attorney to represent plaintiff in the cases.
(Id.)
As relief, plaintiff seeks $100,000,000.00 in damages, and for
Defendants to be enjoined from violating her constitutional
rights.
II.
(Id. at CM/ECF p. 2.)
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, 679 (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.
Cir. 1985).
See Martin v. Sargent, 780 F.2d 1334, 1337 (8th
However, a pro se plaintiff’s allegations must be
-2-
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).
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.
In short, 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.”
U.S. at 48;
Buckley, 997 F.2d at 495.
-3-
West, 487
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 allow her
proceed in state court without the assistance of an attorney,
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 proceedings.”
774 (8th Cir. 2004).
Aaron v. Target Corp., 357 F.3d 768,
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, criminal court proceedings
will not provide her with the opportunity to raise any potential
-4-
constitutional claims.
Thus, even if plaintiff stated a claim
for relief, which she does not, the Court would abstain from
exercising jurisdiction over plaintiff’s claim.
Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted and will be dismissed without prejudice
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
A separate order and
judgment will be entered in accordance with this Memorandum
Opinion.
DATED this 5th day of November, 2013.
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-
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?