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.

Holloway v. Omaha Public Power District

United States District Court, D. Nebraska

May 22, 2018

WALTER H. HOLLOWAY, Plaintiff,
v.
OMAHA PUBLIC POWER DISTRICT, et al., Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          Richard G. Kopf Senior United States District Judge

         Plaintiff filed his pro se Complaint on May 11, 2018 (Filing No. 1), and was given leave to proceed in forma pauperis on May 14, 2018 (Filing No. 5). The court now conducts an initial review of the Complaint to determine whether summary dismissal is appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).

         I. SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT

         Plaintiff's Statement of Claim[1] reads: “I notice the truck sitting in the parking lot of the old Hyvee of 35h and the lisence of [license plate information redacted] and the parking lot lights are on. I had the lights on for the property, he is using the bill to garnish my business royalitys of contract of 10% of interest every year pay.” (Filing No. 1 at CM/ECF p. 4) (spelling and content as in original). Four Defendants are identified:

(1) Omaha Public Power District
(2) State of Nebraska, Dept of Utilities Shareholders
(3) Nebraska Food Broker Lisnce Bureau
(4) Gay Stalker of Past Contracts of Business Write Up Partnership of Business's[2]

(Filing No. 1 at CM/ECF p. 2) (spelling as in original). Since filing his Complaint, Plaintiff has submitted correspondence (Filing No. 6), which the court has considered as a supplemental pleading for purposes of this initial review.

         II. APPLICABLE STANDARDS ON INITIAL REVIEW

         The 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. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

         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 ...


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.