Barnes v. Trump et al
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER that Plaintiff's Complaint is dismissed without prejudice, and Judgment will be entered 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
Lord Rev. DYJUAN D. BARNES,
DONALD J. TRUMP, President,
MICHAEL PENCE, Vice President,
MITCH MCCONNELL, Senator,
PAUL RYAN, Speaker,
THE ENTIRE REPUBLICAN
PARTY/GOP, and THE ENTIRE
Plaintiff, DyJaun D. Barnes, filed his Complaint (Filing No. 1) on August 25,
2017, and was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis on August 28, 2017 (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 alleges that the President, Vice President, Senate Majority Leader,
House Speaker, and both of the major political parties are “conspiring to destroy
America and any and all true Americans” (Filing No. 1 at CM/ECF p. 6). In particular,
he claims Defendants are “attempting to destroy health care and . . . the social safety
network” in order to provide tax breaks to the wealthy (id.). He seeks to have
Defendants arrested and ordered to pay $3 trillion in damages (id. at p. 7).
II. LEGAL 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
III. DISCUSSION OF PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM
“Our Constitution is a charter for limited government.” Mausolf v. Babbitt, 85
F.3d 1295, 1300 (8th Cir. 1996). Article III limits the judicial power to “cases” and
“controversies.” U.S. Const., art. III., § 2, cl. 1. “From this bedrock requirement flow
several doctrines—e.g., standing, mootness, ripeness, and political question—which
state fundamental limits on federal judicial power in our system of government.”
Mausolf, 85 F.3d at 1300 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
To establish constitutional standing, Plaintiff must show that he “(1) suffered
an injury in fact, (2) that is fairly traceable to the challenged conduct of the defendant,
and (3) that is likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision.” Kuhns v.
Scottrade, Inc., No. 16-3426, __ F.3d __, 2017 WL 3584046, at *2 (8th Cir. Aug. 21,
2017) (quoting Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S.Ct. 1540, 1547 (2016)). Plaintiff’s
allegations do not show that he has suffered an “injury in fact,” that is, “an invasion
of a legally protected interest that is concrete and particularized and actual or
imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical.” Id. (quoting Spokeo, 136 S.Ct. at 1584).
Plaintiff’s generalized fear that Defendants will “take our (mine and many others)
health care coverage and . . . totally destroy the social safety net of America” (Filing
No. 1 at CM/ECF p. 7) does not state a justiciable claim. Plaintiff essentially is
requesting the court to make a political decision, which is not the role of the judiciary.
See Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 210 (1962) (“The nonjusticiability of a political
question is primarily a function of the separation of powers.”).
Plaintiff’s Complaint is frivolous, and amendment would be futile because the
court does not have jurisdiction over the claim alleged. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint is dismissed without prejudice, and
Judgment will be entered by separate document.
DATED this 30th day of August, 2017.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Richard G. Kopf
Senior United States District Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?