Goodyear v. State Police of Nebraska et al

Filing 7

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - This action is dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim. Judgment shall be entered by separate document. Ordered by Senior Judge Richard G. Kopf. (Copy mailed to pro se party) (KLF)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
GREGORY SCOTT GOODYEAR,
Plaintiff,

8:16CV525

vs.
STATE POLICE OF NEBRASKA,
GOVERNOR PETE RICKETTS, LT.
COLONEL THOMAS SCHWARTEN,
LYNNE WOODY, AND
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,

MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER

Defendants.
Plaintiff filed a Complaint (Filing No. 1) on December 2, 2016, and a
Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (Filing No. 5) on December 20,
2016. Plaintiff’s Complaint was deficient because it was not signed. (See Filing
No. 6.) Plaintiff filed a signed Complaint on January 25, 2017. (Filing No. 1-1.)
As an initial matter, Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma
Pauperis is insufficient because it is not supported by a financial affidavit. See 28
U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). Notwithstanding this deficiency, there is no need to provide
Plaintiff with an opportunity to provide the court with a financial affidavit because
review of Plaintiff’s Complaint reveals that he fails to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted.
I. SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT
Plaintiff’s Complaint names five defendants: the State Police of Nebraska,
Governor Pete Ricketts, Lt. Colonel Thomas Schwarten, Lynne Woody, and the
Department of Justice. (Filing No. 1-1 at CM/ECF p. 1.) He asserts that he brings
his claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 42 U.S.C. § 1985. Liberally construed,

Plaintiff alleges that multiple officials in the state of Florida conspired against him
to violate his civil rights. (See id. at CM/ECF p. 18.) Plaintiff e-mailed
documentation of the alleged “conspiracy” to Governor Ricketts’ office. (See id. at
CM/ECF pp. 8, 39.) On October 20, 2015, Lynne Woody of the Nebraska State
Patrol responded to Plaintiff’s e-mail to Governor Ricketts’ office and stated,
“After a thorough look at the documentation provided, it appears that the Sheriff is
aware of the circumstances and is handling the matter.” (Id. at CM/ECF p. 39.)
Woody copied Lt. Col. Thomas Schwarten in on the e-mail. (Id.) Plaintiff emailed
Woody back because he was confused why they contacted the Florida sheriff who
was involved in the conspiracy. (Id. at CM/ECF pp. 8, 18.) Woody replied, “Mr.
Goodyear – as stated, we believe this matter is being handled and would
recommend that you contact the DOJ in Florida with your questions/concerns.
Thank you.” (Id. at CM/ECF p. 40.) Woody copied Lt. Col. Schwarten in on the email. (Id.)
In the Conclusion section of his Complaint, Plaintiff states that he “believes
the State Patrol of Nebraska is innocent of Conspiracy in the email
Correspondence with the Plaintiff . . . .” (Id. at CM/ECF p. 18.) He seeks “only to
URGE the Integrity of Lt. Colonel Schwarten, and Lynne Woody of the Nebraska
State Patrol and the State level Government of Nebraska.” (Id.) Plaintiff requests
that the Nebraska State Patrol and Governor Ricketts intervene to stop the criminal
acts of the Florida officials, and he seeks monetary relief if no action is taken. (Id.
at CM/ECF pp. 18-19.)
II. DISCUSSION
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).
2

Plaintiff’s Complaint reveals no facts that show that Defendants violated his
constitutional rights. See Clark v. Long, 255 F.3d 555, 559 (8th Cir. 2001) (“In
order to establish a violation of constitutional rights under § 1983, the plaintiff
must prove that the defendant's unconstitutional action was the ‘cause in fact’ of
the plaintiff's injury.”). See also, Lowe v. Letsinger, 772 F.2d 308, 311 (7th Cir.
1985) (Actions under § 1985(2) and § 1985(3) rely on the existence of racial or
other class-based invidious discriminatory animus). Plaintiff admits as such in his
Conclusion. Woody merely reviewed Plaintiff’s documentation. Woody never
stated that she contacted anyone. This action against Defendants will be dismissed
for failure to state a claim. The court has no authority to require any of Defendants
to intervene in this matter. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 24. The court will not give Plaintiff
an opportunity to amend his Complaint in this matter because it is obvious that
amendment would be futile.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:
1.

This action is dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim.

2.

Judgment shall be entered by separate document.

Dated this 2nd day of February, 2017.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Richard G. Kopf
Senior United States District Judge

3