Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Croghan v. Brunning

United States District Court, D. Nebraska

March 11, 2015

DUSTIN DALE CROGHAN, on behalf of himself and his two minor children represent, K.M.E.C and E.L.G., Plaintiff,
v.
JOHN BRUNNING, LIZ EBERLY, SHANNON ANDERSON, THOMAS PRISTOW, BYRON VANPATTEN, DENISE DREKE, PAUL D. MERRITT JR., PATRICIA A. LAMBERTY, W. MARK ASHFORD, DOUGLAS JOHNSON, JOE KELLY, JESSICA MURPHY, SAMUAL JOHN COOPER, TERRANCE A. POPPE, SCOTT ANDERSCHAFF, RYAN JOHN LEWIS, CHRISTOPHER A. PFANSTIEL, NEBRASKA STATE PATROL, NEBRASKA STATE PATROL, TOM MCCASLIN, and OMAHA POLICE DEPARTMENT, Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

LAURIE SMITH CAMP, District Judge.

Plaintiff Dustin Croghan ("Plaintiff") filed his Complaint on December 11, 2014. (Filing No. 1.) The Court gave Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 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 purports to bring this action on behalf of himself and his two minor children, K.M.E.C. and E.L.G. (Filing No. 1 at ECF 1.) He seeks injunctive relief and money damages for:

acts such as conspiracy, retaliation, child abduction, and fraud under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988 as well as 31:3729 False Claims Act, RICO, Clearfied Doctrine, Stripping Doctrine, violation of human rights and constitutional laws and liberties as well as every other doctrine, law and act that the federal government is aware of that would apply after reading this complaint and affidavit.

( Id. at ECF 3.) Plaintiff named 21 Defendants, most of which are only mentioned in the caption of the Complaint.

Plaintiff's factual allegations consist of a rambling 15-page account of various events relating to the alleged abduction of his children. As best as the Court can tell, these events include Plaintiff's public and private encounters with state officials (including judges, court administrators, and county attorneys) and private lawyers involved in custody and childsupport disputes between Plaintiff and the mother or mothers of Plaintiff's two children.

For relief in this matter, Plaintiff seeks an award of $4 million for himself, and $4 million for K.M.E.C. and E.L.G. Plaintiff also asks the Court to convene a grand jury to "investigate all cases and all parties involving [Plaintiff's] children for criminal acts committed against [him] and [his] children and for a protective order banning the state of Nebraska from contacting or violating [his] rights and liberties again." (Filing No. 1 at ECF 19.)

II. APPLICABLE 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 omitted).

Liberally construed, Plaintiff here alleges federal constitutional claims. To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege a violation of rights protected by the United States Constitution or created by federal statute and also must show that the alleged deprivation was caused by conduct of a person acting under color of state law. West ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.