United States District Court, D. Nebraska
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Richard G. Kopf, Senior United States District Judge
filed a Complaint on October 16, 2017. (Filing No.
1.) He has been given leave to proceed in forma
pauperis. (Filing No. 8.) 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) and 1915A.
SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT
is a prisoner in the custody of the Nebraska Department of
Corrections. He brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 against the State of Nebraska; Douglas County
District Court Judge Kimberly Miller Pankonin (“Judge
Miller Pankonin”); Douglas County Public Defender
Douglas A. Johnson (“Johnson”); Marlon A. Polk
(“Polk”); Matthew J. Miller
(“Miller”); and Omaha Police Department Officers
Josha J. Downs (“Downs”) and Anthony Barnes
(“Barnes”). Plaintiff broadly challenges
several state court criminal proceedingsbrought against him
in Douglas County, Nebraska, alleging that he was maliciously
prosecuted, falsely imprisoned, and suffered violations of
his rights under the 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, and 14th Amendments.
2015, Plaintiff alleges that he “falsely” served
198 days jail for CR15-694. (Filing No. 1 at CM/ECF
p.5.) Plaintiff claims Judge Miller Pankonin and Johnson
lied to him and tricked him into withdrawing his not guilty
plea to both CR15-694 and CR15-2366 and entering a no contest
plea in CR15-694 in exchange for which CR15-2366 would be
dismissed “and not brought back up.”
(Id.) On September 7, 2016, Plaintiff alleges he was
charged in CR16-3314 with the same charges that were
dismissed in CR15-2366 “which is double
result of his false imprisonment, Plaintiff alleges he has
suffered a number of harms including “fights in jail,
sleeping in unclean cells, lack of food, lack of law library,
. . . deformation [sic] of character, slander, los[s] of
wages, . . . physical and emotional distress, illegal search
and seizure, undue process, police brutally [sic], . . .
false advisement, racial profiling, [and] stereotying
[sic].” (Id.) For relief, Plaintiff seeks
monetary damages from “anybody/everybody” that
was involved in cases CR15-694, CR15-2366, CR16-3314,
CR16-20720, and CR16-20732. (Id. at CM/ECF p.6.)
APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS ON INITIAL REVIEW
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 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. §
1915(e)(2)(B); 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).
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).
construed, Plaintiff here alleges 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 Cir. 1993).
construed, Plaintiff has alleged claims of violations of his
rights under the 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, and 14th Amendments to
the Federal Constitution, as well as various state law
claims. The Complaint, however, does not satisfy the general
rules of pleading and is defective in several respects as