Swift v. Schmaderer et al

Filing 12

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: This case is dismissed without prejudice. A separate judgment will be entered in accordance with this order. Ordered by Judge John M. Gerrard. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(TCL )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
ARNETTA SWIFT, Nee Hill,
Plaintiff,
v.
KYLER, Omaha Police Officer, and
JOHN DOE, Unknown, Cohort of
Omaha Police,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

8:14CV259

MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER

Plaintiff Arnetta Swift (“Plaintiff”) filed her Complaint on September 2, 2014.
The court conducted a pre-service screening of the Complaint in accordance with 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). The court determined it could not “conduct a meaningful review
of Plaintiff’s claims because the Complaint is almost entirely illegible.” (Filing No.
9 at CM/ECF p. 1.) The court ordered Plaintiff to file an amended complaint.
Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint (Filing No. 11) on January 28, 2015. She
alleged:
On 8-8-14 “Kyler” and unknown cohort of John Doe Omaha Police
officers burst into our house at 3929 N 42nd St in Omaha, with Bogus
Search warrant and when Nothing listed in search warrant found we
illegally arrested on warrant issued for Nonpayment. . . . No Debtor’s
prison allowed at all in U.S. and Nebraska[.]
(Id. at CM/ECF pp. 1-2.) For relief, Plaintiff sought $100,000,000.00 for her “illegal
arrest and detention.” (Id. at CM/ECF p. 2.)

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). The court must
dismiss a complaint or any portion of it 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.” 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.”).
A plaintiff “fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted,” 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), when the complaint does not “contain sufficient factual matter,
accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Iqbal, 556
U.S. at 678 (internal citations omitted) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). “Where
a complaint pleads facts that are ‘merely consistent with’ a defendant’s liability, it
‘stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility of ‘entitlement to relief.’”
Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557). This standard “demands more than an
unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Id. In other words,
“the tenet that a court must accept as true all of the allegations contained in a
complaint is inapplicable to legal conclusions.” Id.
III. DISCUSSION OF CLAIMS
Here, Plaintiff’s factually unsupported and conclusory allegations about a
“bogus search warrant” and an “illegal arrest and detention” are insufficient to state
2

a claim for relief.1 The right at issue is Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment right to be free
from unreasonable searches and seizures by police officers. U.S. Const. amend. IV.
Plaintiff’s allegations suggest officers had a warrant to search her house and had a
warrant to arrest her. Plaintiff does not present any allegations to reflect the manner
in which Defendants violated her Fourth Amendment rights or how they were
involved in the alleged improper conduct. Even when liberally construed, Plaintiff’s
claims are simply too vague and conclusory to state a claim for relief.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: This case is dismissed without prejudice.
A separate judgment will be entered in accordance with this order.
DATED this 18th day of March, 2015.
BY THE COURT:
s/ John M. Gerrard
United States District Judge

1

The court also received three items of correspondence from a nonparty, Charles
Swift. (See Filing Nos. 6, 7, and 10.) The court previously advised Plaintiff that
Charles Swift could not prosecute this action on her behalf and would not consider
documents submitted by third parties.
*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