United States District Court, D. Nebraska
Lord Rev. DYJUAN D. BARNES, Yahweh PH.D, Plaintiff,
DONALD J. TRUMP, President, MICHAEL PENCE, Vice President, MITCH MCCONNELL, Senator, PAUL RYAN, Speaker, THE ENTIRE REPUBLICAN PARTY/GOP, and THE ENTIRE DEMOCRAT PARTY, Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
RICHARD G. KOPF, SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
DyJaun D. Barnes, filed his Complaint (Filing No. 1)
on August 25, 2017, and was granted leave to proceed in forma
pauperis on August 28, 2017 (Filing No. 5). The
court now conducts an initial review of Plaintiff's
Complaint to determine whether summary dismissal is
appropriate under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2).
SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT
alleges that the President, Vice President, Senate Majority
Leader, House Speaker, and both of the major political
parties are “conspiring to destroy America and any and
all true Americans” (Filing No. 1 at CM/ECF p.
6). In particular, he claims Defendants are
“attempting to destroy health care and . . . the social
safety network” in order to provide tax breaks to the
wealthy (id.). He seeks to have Defendants arrested
and ordered to pay $3 trillion in damages (id. at p.
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).
DISCUSSION OF PLAINTIFF'S CLAIM
Constitution is a charter for limited government.”
Mausolf v. Babbitt, 85 F.3d 1295, 1300 (8th Cir.
1996). Article III limits the judicial power to
“cases” and “controversies.” U.S.
Const., art. III., § 2, cl. 1. “From this
bedrock requirement flow several doctrines-e.g., standing,
mootness, ripeness, and political question-which state
fundamental limits on federal judicial power in our system of
government.” Mausolf, 85 F.3d at 1300
(internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
establish constitutional standing, Plaintiff must show that
he “(1) suffered an injury in fact, (2) that is fairly
traceable to the challenged conduct of the defendant, and (3)
that is likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial
decision.” Kuhns v. Scottrade, Inc., No.
16-3426, ___ F.3d ___, 2017 WL 3584046, at *2 (8th Cir. Aug.
21, 2017) (quoting Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S.Ct.
1540, 1547 (2016)). Plaintiff's allegations do not show
that he has suffered an “injury in fact, ” that
is, “an invasion of a legally protected interest that
is concrete and particularized and actual or imminent, not
conjectural or hypothetical.” Id.(quoting
Spokeo, 136 S.Ct. at 1584). Plaintiff's
generalized fear that Defendants will “take our (mine
and many others) health care coverage and . . . totally
destroy the social safety net of America” (Filing No. 1
at CM/ECF p. 7) does not state a justiciable claim. Plaintiff
essentially is requesting the court to make a political
decision, which is not the role of the judiciary. See
Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 210 (1962) (“The
nonjusticiability of a political question is primarily a
function of the separation of powers.”).
Complaint is frivolous, and amendment would be futile because
the court does not have jurisdiction over the claim alleged.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Complaint is