Hollings v. LPD

Filing 7

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER dismissing Complaint 1 filed by Antonio Hollings for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; denying MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis 2 filed by Antonio Hollings; Court will enter judgment by a separate document. Ordered by Senior Judge Richard G. Kopf. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(CCB)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
ANTONIO HOLLINGS,
Plaintiff,

8:18CV12

vs.
MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER

LPD,
Defendant.

Plaintiff Antonio Hollings, a prisoner, has filed a “Complaint for Violation
of Civil Rights” (filing no. 1) and a Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma
Pauperis (filing no. 2). 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).
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.”).

Plaintiff’s Complaint names “LPD” as Defendant, but contains absolutely no
allegations regarding what LPD did to violate Defendant’s civil rights or cause him
injury. In fact, the form Complaint utilized by Plaintiff is almost entirely blank
save for Plaintiff’s identifying information, signature, and his indication that he is
bringing a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 which arose while he was incarcerated in
“LCDOC.” (Filing No. 1 at CM/ECF pp.2–3, 6, 11.)
Even when liberally construed, the Complaint does not contain any claims or
allegations against LPD or any other individual. Accordingly, the court will
dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint because it fails to set forth “a short and plain
statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ.
P. 8(a)(2).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:
1.
Plaintiff’s Complaint (filing no. 1) is dismissed without prejudice for
failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
2.
Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (filing no.
2) is denied.
3.

The court will enter judgment by a separate document.

Dated this 22nd day of January, 2018.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Richard G. Kopf
Senior United States District Judge

2