Gray v. City of Saint Paul et al

Filing 7

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER that the Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint by September 30, 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 cour t dismissing this case without further notice to Plaintiff. The clerk of the court is directed to set a pro se case management deadline using the following text: September 30, 2016 check for amended complaint. Ordered by Senior Judge Richard G. Kopf. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(LAC)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
RICHARD ERIN GRAY, SR.
Plaintiff,
V.
CITY OF SAINT PAUL, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

8:16CV320

MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER

Plaintiff filed his Complaint in this matter on June 30, 2016. (Filing No. 1.)
Plaintiff, who has been given leave to proceed in forma pauperis, filed a supplement
to his Complaint on July 22, 2016. (Filing No. 6.) The court now conducts an initial
review of the Complaint and supplement (collectively referred to herein as
“Complaint”) to determine whether summary dismissal is appropriate under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2).
I. SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT
Plaintiff’s Complaint is rambling and extremely difficult to decipher. Plaintiff
names a host of defendants, including the State of Nebraska, State of Iowa, and State
of Minnesota. Plaintiff also names several cities, counties, correctional facilities,
police officers, and other individuals as defendants.
Plaintiff’s Complaint includes wide-ranging allegations, including, but not
limited to, claims of unlawful search and seizure, assault, theft, slander,
unconstitutional conditions of confinement, interference with religious beliefs, and
copy-right infringement.

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
omitted).
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).

2

III. DISCUSSION
The Complaint contains a variety of claims which seemingly arise from
different incidents. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20 states that multiple defendants
may be joined in the same action only if “any right to relief is asserted against them
jointly, severally, or in the alternative with respect to or arising out of the same
transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
20(a)(2)(A) (emphasis added). In addition, there must be a “question of law or fact
common to all defendants” in the action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2)(B). Under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 21, the proper remedy for improper joinder of parties is for the
court to “drop a party” or “sever any claim against a party.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 21. The
court may do so “[o]n motion or on its own.” Id.
Plaintiff’s claims arise out of multiple, unrelated events. Therefore, Plaintiff
will be required to file an amended complaint that sets forth only related claims that
stem from the same basic event or occurrence. Plaintiff is warned that upon screening
the amended complaint, the court will consider whether unrelated claims should be
severed. If Plaintiff’s amended complaint sets forth unrelated claims, and the court
decides severance is appropriate, Plaintiff will be required to prosecute unrelated
claims in separate actions and could be required to pay a separate filing fee for each
separate action.
Plaintiff is further advised that the court questions whether it has personal
jurisdiction over multiple defendants who are located outside the State of Nebraska.
Plaintiff should keep jurisdictional matters in mind when drafting his amended
complaint.
Additionally, Plaintiff should take care to comply with Rule 8 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure when preparing his amended complaint. Rule 8 requires that
every complaint contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the
pleader is entitled to relief” and that each allegation “be simple, concise, and direct.”
3

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. A complaint must state enough to “give the defendant fair notice
of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551
U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (quotation omitted). Although a pro se plaintiff’s allegations
should be liberally construed, pro se litigants must comply with the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure. Burgs v. Sissel, 745 F.2d 526, 528 (8th Cir. 1984) (“[P]ro se litigants
are not excused from failing to comply with substantive and procedural law”).
Plaintiff’s Complaint is so long and convoluted that the court cannot determine with
certainty the legal and factual basis for each of Plaintiff’s claims.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:
1.
Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint by September 30, 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 Plaintiff.
2.
The clerk of the court is directed to set a pro se case management
deadline using the following text: September 30, 2016 check for amended complaint.
DATED this 1st day of September, 2016.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Richard G. Kopf
Senior United States District Judge

4