United States District Court, D. Nebraska
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
RICHARD G. KOPF SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter is before the court on initial review of
Plaintiff’s Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT
filed her Complaint in this case on April 19, 2016. (Filing
No. 1.) The Complaint names the City of Omaha, Chief
of Omaha Police Schmader, and Unknown John and Jane Doe
Police as Defendants. The Complaint does not indicate whether
the officers are sued in their individual or official
alleges that in July, 2015, Omaha Police Officers (identified
as “John and Jane Doe”) broke into her house with
a “bogus” search warrant. (Filing No. 1 at
CM/ECF p. 1.) She claims that the unknown police
officers searched her vagina and anus.
alleges that as a result of the illegal search, she was
charged and indicted for possession of a controlled
substance. Also, she claims that the police officers used
excessive force when they arrested her. Plaintiff requests
that the court enjoin Defendants from issuing
“bogus” warrants and “enjoin any
prosecution of Plaintiff arising as a result of any search
perpetrated” on her. (Filing No. 1 at CM/ECF pp.
2-3.) She also seeks an award of $1, 000, 000.00
STANDARDS ON INITIAL REVIEW
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.
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.”).
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).
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
v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988); Buckley v.
Barlow, 997 F.2d 494, 495 (8th Cir. 1993).
DISCUSSION OF CLAIMS
has not set forth viable claims in this action. The City of
Omaha may only be liable under section 1983 if its
“policy” or “custom” caused a
violation of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights. Doe
By and Through Doe v. Washington Cnty., 150 F.3d 920,
922 (8th Cir. 1998) (citing Monell v. Dep’t of Soc.
Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 694 (1978)). An “official
policy” involves a deliberate choice to follow a course
of action made from among various alternatives by an official
who has the final authority to ...