Pope et al v. NP Dodge Corporate Office et al

Filing 12

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - This action is dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Judgment will be entered by separate document. 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
ROBERT D. POPE SR.,
BARBARA J. POPE,
ROBERT D. POPE JR., and
RYAN D. POPE,

)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
NP DODGE CORPORATE OFFICE, )
JOHN KINNEY, and
)
JOSH LIVINGSTON, Rep,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)

8:16CV438

MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER

Plaintiffs, who are all non-prisoner litigants proceeding pro se, initiated this
action on September 20, 2016 (Filing No. 1). Robert D. Pope Sr., Barbara J. Pope, and
Ryan D. Pope were granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis on September 27, 2016
(Filing No. 6). Robert D. Pope Jr. paid a $400.00 filing fee on November 17, 2016
(Text Entry). 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).
On July 22, 2016, the court dismissed Case No. 8:16CV225, which was filed
by these same Plaintiffs against the same Defendants and others. In that case, the court
found that subject matter jurisdiction was lacking because “Plaintiff’s pleadings
contain factual allegations that are so implausible as to be fantastic or delusional”
(Case No. 8:16CV225, Filing No. 15).
The Complaint filed in the present case is no better. Plaintiffs apparently
believe they were the victims of a wiretapping crime, but their allegations are
incomprehensible. Dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is therefore
appropriate. See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 328 n.6 (1989) (“A patently

insubstantial complaint may be dismissed . . . for want of subject-matter jurisdiction
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1)”); DeGrazia v. F.B.I., 316 Fed. Appx.
172, 173 (3d Cir. 2009) (“A federal court may sua sponte dismiss a complaint for lack
of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1)
when the allegations within the complaint ‘are so attenuated and unsubstantial as to
be absolutely devoid of merit, ... wholly insubstantial, ... obviously frivolous, ...
plainly unsubstantial, ... or no longer open to discussion.’”) (quoting Hagans v.
Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 536-37 (1974)).
IT IS ORDERED that this action is dismissed without prejudice for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction. Judgment will be entered by separate document.
DATED this 8th day of December, 2016.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Richard G. Kopf
Senior United States District Judge

-2-