Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Rickman v. Federal-Sociol Security

United States District Court, D. Nebraska

October 26, 2017

ROGER ALLEN RICKMAN, Plaintiff,
v.
FEDERAL-SOCIOL SECURITY, depts; Defendant.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          CHERYL R. ZWART, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

         This matter is before the court on initial review of Plaintiff Roger Allen Rickman's Complaint (Filing No. 1). For the following reasons, the court finds Plaintiff's complaint fails to state a claim. Plaintiff will be given leave to an amended complaint that states a claim upon which relief may be granted.

         SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT

         Plaintiff filed his complaint on December 13, 2016 against “Federal Sociol Security [departments]” in all states. (Filing No. 1 at CM/ECF p. 2).[1] On August 7, 2017, Plaintiff filed a 3-page supplement in addition to his Complaint. (Filing No. 10). For the most part, the supplement is repetitive and nonsensical. But the undersigned finds that certain portions add to or create context for Plaintiff's complaint. Accordingly, out of an abundance of caution, and in order to ensure a just and fair resolution of this matter, the court will consider Plaintiff's additional filing as supplemental to the Complaint. See NECivR 15.1(b) (stating that in pro se cases, the court may consider an amended pleading as supplemental to the original pleading, rather than as superseding); see also Coleman v. Correct Care Solutions, 559 Fed.Appx. 601, 602 (8th Cir. 2014) (citations omitted).

         Plaintiff makes a claim on behalf of all social security disability recipients in the United States. He argues all disability benefits recipients should receive “no less than $1, 500 a month” in benefits. (Filing No. 1 at CM/ECF pp. 5, 6; Filing No. 10). Plaintiff includes himself in this argument stating that he receives monthly payments of $666.00 which is not sufficient for him to live on. (Filing No. 1 at CM/ECF p. 5).

         Plaintiff additionally claims his disabled mother was denied Social Security benefits from 1974-1979 which caused him personal suffering and hardship as a child. (Filing No. 1 at CM/ECF pp. 5, 6; Filing No. 10 at CM/ECF p. 1).

         For relief, Plaintiff requests monetary damages in the amount of $7.7 billion.

         STANDARDS ON INITIAL REVIEW

         The court is required to review prisoner and in forma pauperis complaints seeking relief against a governmental entity or an officer or employee of a governmental entity to determine whether summary dismissal is appropriate. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e) and 1915A. The court must dismiss a complaint or any portion thereof that states a frivolous or malicious claim, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.

         Pro se 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.”).

         “The 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).

         ANALYSIS OF CLAIMS

         “[A] plaintiff generally must assert his own legal rights and interests, and cannot rest his claim to relief on the legal rights or interests of third parties.” Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 499 (1975). Additionally, a litigant may bring his own claims to federal court without counsel, but not the claims of others. See 28 U.S.C. § 1654; see also 7A Wright, Miller & Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil 3d § 1769.1 (“class representatives cannot appear pro se”).

         Accordingly, Plaintiff cannot assert the social security benefits claims of third parties, including his mother and all others receiving social ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.