Swift et al v. Moss et al
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER that Plaintiffs shall file an amended complaint by September 26, 2016, that states a claim upon which relief may be granted. Failure to file an amended complaint within the time specified by the court will result in the court d ismissing this case without further notice to Plaintiffs. The clerk of the court is directed to set a pro se case management deadline using the following text: September 26, 2016 check for amended complaint. Ordered by Senior Judge Richard G. Kopf. (Copy mailed to pro se party) (ADB)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
CHARLES SWIFT, and ARNETTA
EUSTACHIA MOSS, individually
and officially, and MICHELLE
ADAMS, individually and officially,
Plaintiffs filed the Complaint in this matter on June 23, 2016. (Filing No. 1.)
Plaintiff Charles Swift has 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
Plaintiffs’ Complaint is difficult to decipher. As best the court can tell,
Plaintiffs allege that Defendants illegally searched their trailer. Plaintiffs claim that
Defendants were employees of the Nebraska Department of Health and Human
Services. Defendants are sued in their official and individual capacities.
As relief, Plaintiffs seek $5,000,000 in damages and a declaration that
Defendants’ acts, practices, and policies “violate a niggers constitutional rights.”
(Filing No. 1 at CM/ECF p. 1.)
II. 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
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).
Plaintiffs’ Complaint fails to set forth cognizable claims. The Eleventh
Amendment bars claims for damages by private parties against a state, state
instrumentalities, and an employee of a state sued in the employee’s official capacity.
See, e.g., Egerdahl v. Hibbing Cmty. Coll., 72 F.3d 615, 619 (8th Cir. 1995); Dover
Elevator Co. v. Arkansas State Univ., 64 F.3d 442, 446-47 (8th Cir. 1995).
Consequently, Plaintiffs’ official capacity claims against Defendants, who are
allegedly employed by the State of Nebraska, fail.
Additionally, Plaintiffs have failed to specify how each defendant was
personally involved in the events described in the Complaint. Rather, Defendants’
names only appear in the caption of the Complaint. A complaint that only lists a
defendant’s name in the caption without alleging that the defendant was personally
involved in the alleged misconduct fails to state a claim against that defendant. Krych
v. Hvass, 83 F. App’x 854, 855 (8th Cir. 2003). Plaintiffs’ conclusory allegation that
Defendants illegally searched their trailer is insufficient to state a cognizable claim.
On the court’s own motion, the court will provide Plaintiffs with an opportunity
to file an amended complaint that states a claim upon which relief may be granted.
Failure to file an amended complaint within the time specified by the court will result
in the court dismissing this case without further notice.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:
Plaintiffs shall file an amended complaint by September 26, 2016, that
states a claim upon which relief may be granted. Failure to file an amended complaint
within the time specified by the court will result in the court dismissing this case
without further notice to Plaintiffs.
The clerk of the court is directed to set a pro se case management
deadline using the following text: September 26, 2016 check for amended complaint.
DATED this 29th day of August, 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?