United States District Court, D. Nebraska
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
JOHN M. GERRARD, District Judge.
Plaintiff Ernest Medina ("Plaintiff") filed his Complaint (Filing No. 1) on November 7, 2014. He was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis on November 19, 2014. ( See Filing No. 9.) The court now conducts an initial review of Plaintiff's claims to determine whether summary dismissal is appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).
I. SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT
Plaintiff is incarcerated at the Lancaster County Jail in Lincoln, Nebraska. He purports to sue a federal statute. Specifically, Plaintiff seeks to sue the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552. He alleges:
THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACTS EXEMPTION CLAUSE IS TOO BROAD, IT INCLUDES ADMINISTRATIVE INTERNAL AFFAIRS INVESTIGATIONS
EVERY FORM OF GOVERNMENT HAS THE RIGHT TO WITHHOLD ADMINISTRATIVE FINDINGS IN INTERNAL AFFAIRS INVESTIGATIONS
THIS ALLOWS MISCONDUCT TO BE COVERED UP BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE GOVERNMENT
(Filing No. 1 at CM/ECF p. 2.) Plaintiff does not state what relief he seeks other than to state that he "WOULD LIKE A 3-JUDGE PANEL." ( Id. at CM/ECF p. 5.)
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 ...