Holliday v. The Cardiac Center et al
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - Holliday must file an amended complaint in accordance with this order within 30 days. Failure to file an amended complaint will result in the court dismissing this action without further notice to Holliday. ***Pro Se Case Management Deadlines: ( Pro Se Case Management Deadline set for 3/21/2016: check for amended complaint) Ordered by Senior Judge Richard G. Kopf. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(MKR)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
THE CARDIAC CENTER, et al.,
This matter is before the court on initial review of Plaintiff Doc Holliday’s
Complaint. For the reasons set forth below, the court will give Holliday 30 days in
which to file an amended complaint that clearly sets forth the nature of his claims, the
jurisdictional basis for his claims, and the relief he seeks.
I. 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.”).
“The essential function of a complaint under the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure is to give the opposing party ‘fair notice of the nature and basis or grounds
for a claim, and a general indication of the type of litigation involved.’” Topchian v.
JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 760 F.3d 843, 848 (8th Cir. 2014) (quoting Hopkins v.
Saunders, 199 F.3d 968, 973 (8th Cir. 1999)). However, “[a] pro se complaint must
be liberally construed, and pro se litigants are held to a lesser pleading standard than
other parties.” Topchian, 760 F.3d at 849 (internal quotation marks and citations
Holliday filed this lawsuit against two medical centers in Omaha,
Nebraska—the Cardiac Center and the CHI Health Creighton University Medical
Center—and also against the State of Nebraska and two State of Nebraska employees.
The court cannot discern Holliday’s basis for suing these defendants. In addition, the
court is unable to discern any coherent facts about the nature of his claims, the
jurisdictional basis for his claims, or the relief he seeks. In short, even when liberally
construed, Holilday’s Complaint does not give the opposing parties “‘fair notice of the
nature and basis or grounds for a claim, and a general indication of the type of
litigation involved.’” Topchian, 760 F.3d at 848 (quoting Hopkins, 199 F.3d at 973).
On the court’s own motion, Holliday will have 30 days in which to file an
amended complaint that clearly sets forth the nature of his claims, the jurisdictional
basis for his claims, and the relief he seeks.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:
Holliday must file an amended complaint in accordance with this order
within 30 days. Failure to file an amended complaint will result in the court
dismissing this action without further notice to Holliday.
The clerk of the court is directed to set a pro se case management
deadline using the following text: March 21, 2016: check for amended complaint.
DATED this 22nd day of February, 2016.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Richard G. Kopf
Senior United States District Judge
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?