Swift v. Adams et al

Filing 6

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER that Swift will have 30 days in which to file an amended complaint. Failure to file an amended complaint within 30 days will result in the court dismissing this action without further notice. The clerk of the court is directed to set the following pro se case management deadline: February 16, 2016: check for amended complaint; dismiss if none filed. The court will conduct further review of any amended complaint to determine whether summary dismissal is appropriate. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). Ordered by Judge John M. Gerrard. (Copy mailed to pro se party) (LAC)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
CHARLES SWIFT,
Plaintiff,
v.
MICHELLE ADAMS, and
EUSTACHIA MOSS,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

8:15CV327

MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER

Plaintiff Charles Swift (“Plaintiff”) filed his Complaint in this matter on
September 3, 2015. (Filing No. 1). Swift has provisionally been given leave to
proceed in forma pauperis. (Filing No. 5). Accordingly, the court now conducts an
initial review of his claims to determine whether summary judgment is appropriate
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
Swift filed his Complaint against Michelle Adams (“Adams”) and Eustachia
Moss (“Moss”). (Filing No. 1 at CM/ECF p. 1). He alleges that on an unspecified
date, Moss, acting under the direction of her boss Adams, conducted a search of a
trailer on his property. (Filing No. 1 at CM/ECF pp. 1-2). He alleges that this search
was illegal and conducted without a warrant. Plaintiff does not set forth who Adams
and Moss are or whether they were acting as state agents when they searched his
property. For relief, Swift asks for $10,000,000.00 in monetary damages and a
“declaration [that] said search [was] illegal.” (Filing No. 1 at CM/ECF p. 1).
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life
Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). The subject-matter jurisdiction of the
federal district courts is generally set forth in 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1332. Under
these statutes, federal jurisdiction is available only when a “federal question” is
presented (i.e., in a civil action arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the

United States) or when the parties are of diverse citizenship and the amount in
controversy exceeds $75,000.
Here, Swift seeks damages based on an unconsented search of his property.
Swift does not state that Adams and Moss are citizens of a different state. In addition,
because Swift does not allege Adams and Moss were state actors, there is no
discernible “federal question” alleged in the Complaint.
On the court’s own motion, Swift will have 30 days in which to file an amended
complaint that sets forth a basis for this court’s jurisdiction. Swift, who has numerous
cases pending in this court, must clearly designate on the face of the document that it
is his “Amended Complaint” in this case.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:
1.
Swift will have 30 days in which to file an amended complaint. Failure
to file an amended complaint within 30 days will result in the court dismissing this
action without further notice.
2.
The clerk of the court is directed to set the following pro se case
management deadline: February 16, 2016: check for amended complaint; dismiss if
none filed.
3.
The court will conduct further review of any amended complaint to
determine whether summary dismissal is appropriate. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).

2

DATED this 12th day of January, 2016.
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.
3