Luckett v. Craft

Filing 6

MEMORANDUM OPINION - A separate order will be entered in accordance with this memorandum opinion. Ordered by Senior Judge Lyle E. Strom. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(TCL )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
ALVIN LUCKETT,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
MIA CRAFT,
)
)
Defendant.
)
______________________________)

8:14CV234

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the Court on plaintiff Alvin
Luckett’s (“Luckett”) Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma
Pauperis (Filing No. 2).

On August 11, 2014, Luckett mailed two

documents to the clerk’s office of the United States District
Court for the District of Nebraska, a “Motion for Writ of
Replevin” (Filing No. 1) and an Application to Proceed in Forma
Pauperis (Filing No. 2).

The caption in both documents suggests

that Luckett intended to file this action in the state courts of
Mississippi.

(See case caption in Filing No. 1 at CM/ECF p. 1

(“IN THE JUSTICE COURT OF UNKNOWN COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI”) and case
caption in Filing No. 2 at CM/ECF p. 1 (“APPLICATION TO PROCEED
IN FORMA PAUPERIS IN THE COURTS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI”).)
Thus, because it appears from the face of the pleadings that
Luckett did not intend to file an action in this Court, the
undersigned judge will deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis
and dismiss this matter without prejudice to reassertion in the

intended forum.

A separate order will be entered in accordance

with this memorandum opinion.
DATED this 14th day of August, 2014.
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.

-2-