United States District Court, D. Nebraska
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
RICHARD G. KOPF Senior United States District Judge.
matter is before the court on its own motion. On June 9,
2016, the court conducted an initial review (Filing No.
12) of Plaintiff’s Complaint which, in its
entirety, read: “We pray for a decioration that
‘Lux’ violated our constitutional rights under
color of state law when he held us without NesNe Sine die
Sans MesMe.” (Filing No. 1.) Finding that
Plaintiff failed to comply with the general rules of
pleading, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8, the court ordered
Plaintiff to file an Amended Complaint with the following
directions: “Plaintiff should be mindful to explain
what Defendants did to her, when Defendants did it, how
Defendants’ actions harmed her, and what specific legal
rights Plaintiff believes Defendants violated.”
Plaintiff was also cautioned to “not repeat claims made
in her other numerous lawsuits. (See Case Nos.
4:16CV3081, 8:14CV259, 8:16CV53, 8:16CV67, 8:16CV106,
8:16CV150, 8:16CV151, 8:16CV152.)” (Filing No. 12 at
CM/ECF p. 3.)
has now filed an Amended Complaint (Filing No. 13),
which the court must now review and determine whether summary
dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) is appropriate.
SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT
has complied with the Court’s prior order insofar as
she very broadly alleges what was done to her (illegal arrest
based on search of an unspecified place; search warrant
relied only on information provided by a “rat
confidential informant”; and held in jail for three
weeks to two months after she “posted bond”);
when these actions occurred (2014, 2015, 2016); harm she
suffered as a result (“lost thousands of dollars of
possessions”); and what legal rights were violated
(court may infer Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights from
contrary to the court’s prior order, Plaintiff has
repeated claims made in previous lawsuits against some of the
same defendants. See Swift v. Holtmyer, No.
8:16CV150 (Plaintiff’s suit against Omaha Police
Officer Holtmyer for unlawful search, arrest, and unwarranted
criminal charges) (amended complaint due Aug. 1, 2016);
Swift v. Foxall & Employee John Doe, No.
8:16CV151 (Plaintiff’s suit against Foxall and unknown
John Doe employee for holding Plaintiff in jail after release
order was entered) (amended complaint due Aug. 1, 2016);
Swift v. Jerabek, Foxall, et al., No. 8:16CV67
(Plaintiff’s suit against Foxall, Jerabek, and others
for illegal arrest upon “bogus” warrant and being
held in jail after bond posted; dismissed July 15, 2016, for
failure to diligently prosecute).
Plaintiff has not made any allegations whatsoever regarding
any specific defendant she has named in her complaints, except in
reference to Plaintiff’s comment that even
“supra white and racist” judges can see
that people may not be held in jail without a “motion
from lux to hold petitioner” or a judge’s order.
(Filing No. 13 at CM/ECF p. 1.)
STANDARDS ON INITIAL REVIEW
reviewing an in forma pauperis complaint to determine whether
summary dismissal is appropriate, the court must dismiss a
complaint or any portion thereof 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” for failing to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted. Bell Atlantic Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 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.”).
Regardless of whether a plaintiff is represented or is
appearing pro se, the plaintiff’s complaint must allege
specific facts sufficient to state a claim. See Martin v.
Sargent, 780 F.2d 1334, 1337 (8th Cir. 1985). A pro se
plaintiff’s allegations must be construed liberally.
Burke v. North Dakota Dep’t of Corr. &
Rehab., 294 F.3d 1043, 1043-44 (8th Cir. 2002)
construed, Plaintiff here seeks to allege 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
sues the defendants both “individually and
officially.” (Filing No. 13 at CM/ECF p. 1.)