United States District Court, D. Nebraska
JESSE A. FRANK, Plaintiff,
U.S. GOVERNMENT, et al., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Richard G. Kopf Senior United States District Judge
Jesse A. Frank, filed his Complaint (Filing No. 1)
on August 14, 2017, and was granted leave to proceed in forma
pauperis on August 15, 2017 (Filing No. 5). The
court now conducts an initial review of Frank's Complaint
and to determine whether summary dismissal is appropriate
under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2).
SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT
claims the United States Government, Douglas County, the
Department of Corrections, and Correct Care Solutions
violated his constitutional rights, but no facts are
provided. For his statement of claim, Frank merely says:
Complaint 14th Amendment.
(See Attatched. [sic]).
(Filing No. 1 at CM/ECF p. 4). There is no attachment to the
LEGAL 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).
construing Frank's Complaint, he is suing Defendants
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. To state a claim under that
section, 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