Fraction v. James et al

Filing 6

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER that this matter is dismissed without prejudice. The court will enter judgment by separate document. 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
BERNARD FRACTION,
Plaintiff,

8:17CV101

vs.
RANDY JAMES, and VANDELAY
INVESTMENTS,

MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER

Defendants.
Plaintiff filed his Complaint on March 24, 2017. (Filing No. 1.) He has been
given leaven to proceed in forma pauperis. (Filing No. 5.) The court now conducts
an initial review of Plaintiff’s Complaint to determine whether summary dismissal
is appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
I. SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT
Plaintiff sues Defendants Randy James (“James”) and Vandelay
Investments. (Filing No. 1 at CM/ECF p. 1.) According to Plaintiff, James
represents Vandelay Investments. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendants illegally
seized his property in Omaha, Nebraska using false documentation. (Id.) Plaintiff
claims that he filed charges against Defendants for fraud because “there were none
of the prerequisites filed with Douglas County Treasure [sic] Office as required by
law.” (Id.) He alleges that the Omaha Police Department will take no action,
allowing Defendants to continue to remove and destroy his property. (Id.) Plaintiff
asserts that he suffers from extreme duress because Defendants violated his
“personal and Civil Rights.” (Id. at CM/ECF p. 2.)

II. APPLICABLE STANDARDS OF 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).
III. DISCUSSION
The court understands Plaintiff to be challenging a state-court proceeding
concerning the issuance of a forcible entry and detainer judgment.1 Because
1

Fraction,

PDF of JUSTICE document for Vandelay Investments, L.L.C. v.
Douglas County Court Case No. CI 13-23063, at
2

Plaintiff is attempting to collaterally attack a state-court judgment, the court lacks
subject matter jurisdiction over this matter. See Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263
U.S. 413, 416 (1923); District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S.
462, 482-86 (1983) (collectively, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine). See e.g., Martinez
v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 91 F.3d 138 (5th Cir. 1996).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:
1.

This matter is dismissed without prejudice.

2.

The court will enter judgment by separate document.

Dated this 1st day of May, 2017.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Richard G. Kopf
Senior United States District Judge

https://www.nebraska.gov/justice//case.cgi; Stutzka v. McCarville, 420 F.3d 757,
760 n.2 (8th Cir. 2005) (court may take judicial notice of judicial opinions and
public records).
*This opinion may contain hyperlinks to other documents or Web sites. The U.S. District Court for the District of
Nebraska does not endorse, recommend, approve, or guarantee any third parties or the services or products they
provide on their Web sites. Likewise, the court has no agreements with any of these third parties or their Web sites.
The court accepts no responsibility for the availability or functionality of any hyperlink. Thus, the fact that a
hyperlink ceases to work or directs the user to some other site does not affect the opinion of the court.

3