Robinson v. State of Nebraska

Filing 28

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER that this case is dismissed without prejudice. All pending motions (Filing Nos. 21 , 24 ) are denied as moot. A separate judgment will be entered. 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
ERIC ROBINSON,
Plaintiff,

8:17CV204

vs.
MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER

STATE OF NEBRASKA,
Defendant.

Plaintiff Eric Robinson (“Robinson”) petitions the court for a writ of
mandamus. (Filing No. 22.) He has also filed additional motions and supplemental
materials. (Filing Nos. 21, 23, 24, 25, 26.) The court granted Robinson leave to
proceed in forma pauperis. (Filing No. 20.) The court now conducts an initial
review of Robinson’s pleadings to determine whether summary dismissal is
appropriate. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).
I. BACKGROUND
On January 7, 2014, the court dismissed Robinson’s writ of mandamus
action against various employees of the Federal Aviation Administration. See
Robinson v. Huerta et al., Filing Nos. 8-9 at Case No. 4:13-cv-3130 (D. Neb.
2014). Robinson did not appeal the judgment. On February 27, 2017, Robinson
filed a 227-page Motion for Reconsideration in that case. (Filing No. 10, Case No.
4:13-cv-3130.) In his Motion, Robinson appeared to disagree with the January 7,
2014, Memorandum and Order, but he also appeared to seek relief against state
officials in a wholly separate matter. The court denied Robinson’s Motion for
Reconsideration and instructed him to file a complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 8 that states his claims for relief against state officials. (Filing No.
11, Case No. 4:13-cv-3130.) Robinson later filed additional supplemental materials
totaling nearly 50 pages to support his Motion for Reconsideration. (Filing Nos.

14-15, Case No. 4:13-cv-3130.) He wanted the court to direct the state county and
district courts to take certain actions in his current and prior criminal proceedings
in those courts. (Id.) The court informed Robinson of the multiple reasons why it
could not grant him relief. (See Filing No. 16, Case No. 4:13-cv-3130.)
On June 9, 2017, Robinson petitioned the court for a writ of mandamus
against the State of Nebraska. (Filing No. 1.) He stated in his pleading that “the
new writ has nothing to do with the civil Michael P. Huerta F.A.A. writ.” (Id. at
CM/ECF p. 3.) Accordingly, the court opened a new case. (See Filing No. 4 at
CM/ECF p. 1 n.1.) Robinson continued to file additional supplemental materials
totaling over 50 pages. (Filing Nos. 9-11.) In response, the court informed
Robinson:
The court understands from Plaintiff’s recent filings that he intends to
file a future complaint. The court warns Plaintiff that it will no
longer accept piecemeal filings from him. He shall file a complaint
with the required payment of fees or request to proceed in forma
pauperis. Furthermore, any complaint shall comply with Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 8, which states that a pleading must contain “a
short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is
entitled to relief.” (emphasis added). Plaintiff’s filings to date have not
complied with Rule 8. Failure to comply with these requirements
will result in dismissal of this action without further notice to
Plaintiff.
(Filing No. 12.) (emphasis in original)
On August 28, 2017, Robinson filed the Motion for Writ of Mandamus at
issue now. (Filing No. 22.) The Motion comprises a full notebook – 71 pages – of
handwritten allegations from Robinson that appear to include ramblings,
frustrations, and commentary. Separately, Robinson filed a 53-page Motion to
Amend to add discovery (Filing No. 21), 100 pages of supplemental materials
(Filing Nos. 23, 25, 26), and a 147-page Motion to add the Ombudsman as a
defendant (Filing No. 24).

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.”).
III. DISCUSSION
Robinson’s 71-page Motion for Writ of Mandamus with hundreds of pages
of additional motions and supplemental materials do not comply with Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 8, which states that a pleading must contain “a short and plain
statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” (emphasis
added) The court warned Robinson twice - once in his previous writ of mandamus
action and once in the current action – that he must comply with Rule 8 in any
complaint he files against state officials. There is, however, further explanation for
dismissing this action.
Robinson alleges that he has been unlawfully convicted and/or incarcerated
in several state court criminal cases because of the actions of county and district
courts in Lancaster County, Nebraska. (See Filing No. 22 at CM/ECF pp. 2-3.) He
claims he is “owed defense” and counsel of his choice. (Id.) He seeks a writ of
3

mandamus compelling the state courts to “preserve constitutional law.” (Id.)
However, the court does not have jurisdiction to compel the state courts to act. See
28 U.S.C. § 1361 (“The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any action
in the nature of mandamus to compel an officer or employee of the United States
or any agency thereof to perform a duty owed to the plaintiff”) (emphasis added);
see also White v. Ward, 145 F.3d 1139 (10th Cir. 1998) (explaining that federal
courts “lack[ ] jurisdiction to direct a state court to perform its duty”).
To the extent that Robinson actually seeks federal habeas corpus relief, i.e.
to invalidate his convictions, he must first exhaust his state court remedies,
specifically through the state court appellate system; file separate habeas corpus
petitions for each state court judgment; and any habeas action will be subject to a
one-year statute of limitations. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d)(1); 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)
and (c); Rule 2(e) of the Rules Governing Habeas Corpus Cases Under Section
2254.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:
1.

This case is dismissed without prejudice.

2.

All pending motions (Filing Nos. 21, 24) are denied as moot.

3.

A separate judgment will be entered.

Dated this 5th day of October, 2017.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Richard G. Kopf
Senior United States District Judge

4