United States District Court, D. Nebraska
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Richard G. Kopf Senior United States District Judge.
Eric Robinson (“Robinson”) petitions the court
for a writ of mandamus. (Filing No. 22.) He has also
filed additional motions and supplemental materials.
(Filing Nos. 21, 23, 24,
25, 26.) The court granted Robinson leave
to proceed in forma pauperis. (Filing No. 20.) The
court now conducts an initial review of Robinson's
pleadings to determine whether summary dismissal is
appropriate. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).
January 7, 2014, the court dismissed Robinson's writ of
mandamus action against various employees of the Federal
Aviation Administration. See Robinson v. Huerta et
al., Filing Nos. 8-9 at Case No. 4:13-cv-3130
(D. Neb. 2014). Robinson did not appeal the judgment. On
February 27, 2017, Robinson filed a 227-page Motion for
Reconsideration in that case. (Filing No. 10, Case
No. 4:13-cv-3130.) In his Motion, Robinson appeared to
disagree with the January 7, 2014, Memorandum and Order, but
he also appeared to seek relief against state officials in a
wholly separate matter. The court denied Robinson's
Motion for Reconsideration and instructed him to file a
complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
8 that states his claims for relief against state
officials. (Filing No. 11, Case No. 4:13-cv-3130.)
Robinson later filed additional supplemental materials
totaling nearly 50 pages to support his Motion for
Reconsideration. (Filing Nos. 14-15, Case No.
4:13-cv-3130.) He wanted the court to direct the state county
and district courts to take certain actions in his current
and prior criminal proceedings in those courts.
(Id.) The court informed Robinson of the multiple
reasons why it could not grant him relief. (See
Filing No. 16, Case No. 4:13-cv-3130.)
9, 2017, Robinson petitioned the court for a writ of mandamus
against the State of Nebraska. (Filing No. 1.) He
stated in his pleading that “the new writ has nothing
to do with the civil Michael P. Huerta F.A.A. writ.”
(Id. at CM/ECF p. 3.) Accordingly, the court opened
a new case. (See Filing No. 4 at CM/ECF p. 1 n.1.)
Robinson continued to file additional supplemental materials
totaling over 50 pages. (Filing Nos. 9-11.)
In response, the court informed Robinson:
The court understands from Plaintiff's recent filings
that he intends to file a future complaint. The court warns
Plaintiff that it will no longer accept piecemeal filings
from him. He shall file a complaint with the required payment
of fees or request to proceed in forma pauperis. Furthermore,
any complaint shall comply with Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 8, which states that a pleading must contain
“a short and plain statement of the claim showing that
the pleader is entitled to relief.” (emphasis added).
Plaintiff's filings to date have not complied with Rule
8. Failure to comply with these requirements will result in
dismissal of this action without further notice to Plaintiff.
(Filing No. 12.) (emphasis in original)
August 28, 2017, Robinson filed the Motion for Writ of
Mandamus at issue now. (Filing No. 22.) The Motion
comprises a full notebook - 71 pages - of handwritten
allegations from Robinson that appear to include ramblings,
frustrations, and commentary. Separately, Robinson filed a
53-page Motion to Amend to add discovery (Filing No.
21), 100 pages of supplemental materials (Filing
Nos. 23, 25, 26), and a 147-page
Motion to add the Ombudsman as a defendant (Filing No.
APPLICABLE STANDARDS OF 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.”).
71-page Motion for Writ of Mandamus with hundreds of pages of
additional motions and supplemental materials do not comply
with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, which states
that a pleading must contain “a short and plain
statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled
to relief.” (emphasis added) The court warned
Robinson twice - once in his previous writ of mandamus action
and once in the current action - that he must comply with
Rule 8 in any complaint he files against state officials.
There is, however, further explanation for dismissing this
alleges that he has been unlawfully convicted and/or
incarcerated in several state court criminal cases because of
the actions of county and district courts in Lancaster
County, Nebraska. (SeeFiling No. 22 at CM/ECF
pp. 2-3.) He claims he is “owed defense” and
counsel of his choice. (Id.) He seeks a writ of
mandamus compelling the state courts to “preserve
constitutional law.” (Id.) However, the court
does not have jurisdiction to compel the state courts to act.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1361 (“The district
courts shall have original jurisdiction of any action in the
nature of mandamus to compel an officer or employee of
the United States or any agency thereof to perform a
duty owed to the ...