United States District Court, D. Nebraska
WALTER H. HOLLOWAY, Plaintiff,
OMAHA PUBLIC POWER DISTRICT, et al., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Richard G. Kopf Senior United States District Judge
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.
SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT
Statement of Claim 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
(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.
APPLICABLE 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
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 ...