United States District Court, D. Nebraska
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Richard G. Kopf Senior United States District Judge.
This matter is before the court on initial review of Plaintiff Christian Valdez’s Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). For the reasons discussed below, the court will dismiss Valdez’s Complaint without prejudice.
I. SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT
Valdez filed this action against Ed Lester and Jerome McCarthy, two Butte, Montana, law enforcement officers. In addition, he filed this action against Kara Richardson, Sara Crowson, and Shelley Emerson, three employees of the Department of Family Services in Butte, Montana. Finally, he filed this action against Brandon Dellasara of “Aware Inc.” (Filing No. 1-1 at CM/ECF p. 1.)
Valdez alleged state or local officials removed his son from his care and custody on November 20, 2014. He described the events leading up to this incident as follows:
On the night of November 20, 2014, I set out a voice activated recorder because I had a bad feeling that something was going to happen. Around 3am I fell asleep in a chair in my living room. Before falling asleep I created a gas mixture using bleach and ammonia and I placed it in my basement. I was afraid that something was going to happen to myself or my son who was also in the home asleep at the time. The reasoning behind using the gas mixture was that I had break-ins before and when I went to local law enforcement to get help, I was denied and turned away and told that I was hallucinating. . . . I woke up around 5:30 am[, ] . . . check[ed] the recording to see if anything had happened and there were voices of multiple men on their [sic] talking about killing me for money[.]”
(Filing No. 1-1 at CM/ECF p. 2.)
Valdez reported these incidents to the police, but they claimed not to hear the voices on the recording. They removed Valdez’s son from his home and they are now in the process of terminating Valdez’s parental rights. (Filing No. 1-1 at CM/ECF pp. 3-4.)
At some point after November 20, 2014, Valdez played the audio recording for Defendants Lester and McCarthy, but they both claimed they could hear only Valdez’s voice. (Filing No. 1-1 at CM/ECF pp. 3-4.) In addition, at some point following this incident, Valdez moved to Nebraska. He attempted to remain in contact with the Department of Family Services, but complains Defendants Crowson and Richardson “barely” returned his calls. (Filing No. 1 at CM/ECF p. 4.)
For relief in this matter, Valdez asks the court to order his son returned to him. (Filing No. 1 at CM/ECF p. 6.)
II. STANDARDS ON INITIAL REVIEW
The court is required to review prisoner and in forma pauperis complaints seeking relief against a governmental entity or an officer or employee of a governmental entity 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 ...