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 (Filing No. 4) in this case on
March 25, 2016. The Complaint names the City of Omaha,
“8 Unknown Jane-John Omaha Police Officers, ” and
Omaha Police Officer Chris Brown as Defendants.
construed, Plaintiff alleges that she was the subject of a
search warrant dated July 16, 2015. A state court authorized
the search warrant in response to an application and
affidavit submitted by Defendant Officer Chris Brown. The
face of the warrant authorized law enforcement to search
Plaintiff’s residence and also her
“person.” (Filing No. 4 at CM/ECF p. 7.)
alleges that upon executing the search warrant, two female
police officers (identified as “Jane Does”)
instructed her to remove her clothing and “spread [her]
legs apart bend over and cough.” (Filing No. 4 at
CM/ECF p. 2.) Plaintiff objected, but the Jane Doe officers
informed her that they would “get a search warrant to
transport [her to] the hospital so that they can finish
search.” (Filing No. 4 at CM/ECF p. 2.) Thereafter, the
Jane Doe officers conducted “vaginal and anus
searches.” (Filing No. 4 at CM/ECF p. 2.) It appears
from Plaintiff’s allegations that they conducted the
search inside the bathroom of Plaintiff’s residence.
(Filing No. 4 at CM/ECF p. 3.)
relief, Plaintiff seeks $100, 000, 000.00 “for
humiliation [and] degradation perpetrated upon [her].”
(Filing No. 4 at CM/ECF p. 1.)
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. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
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
Claims Against ...