United States District Court, D. Nebraska
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Smith Camp, Chief United States District Judge.
matter is before the Court on the Motion to Dismiss, ECF No.
12, filed by Defendant United States of America; the Motion
to Dismiss, ECF No. 15, filed by Defendants Mike
Fredrick d/b/a State Farm Insurance, Shannon Corkle
Olberding, and Shannon Corkle d/b/a Corkledings; the Motion
to Dismiss, ECF No. 17, filed by Defendants City of Atkinson,
Ken Counts, Stuart Dockter, Ron Krysl, Gary A. Lech, Jerry
Osborne, Leo Seger, Paul Corkle, Thomas Herzog, Alan
Brodbeck, Wayne Braun, Tim Braun, Timothy Larby, Janet
Krotter Chvala, Andrew Hoffman, Jeffrey Galyen, Steven A.
Brewster, Leo Seger d/b/a Seger Funeral Home, and Paul
Corkle, d/b/a Crop Insurance Sales; the “Objection to
Judge [Smith] Camp, ” ECF No. 19, filed by Plaintiff
James Widtfeldt; and the Motion to Strike, ECF No. 20, filed
by Defendant United States of America. For the reasons stated
below, the motions to dismiss will be granted, the motions to
recuse and to strike will be denied, and the Amended
Complaint will be dismissed.
filed this action in the District Court for Holt County,
Nebraska. His Amended Complaint alleged a far-reaching
conspiracy against him, involving the United States Postal
Service, the Internal Revenue Service, the Atkinson City
Council, and the Seger Funeral Home of Atkinson, Nebraska,
among others. Widtfleft alleged that various defendants
withheld his mail, wrongfully cited him for housing code
violations, interfered with his efforts to cure Lyme disease,
and murdered his tenants. Widtfeldt named that United States
Postal Service, and its employee, Jon Sindelar, as defendants
“due to theft or diversion of a Widtfeldt certified
mail from Judge Sullivan of the U.S. District Court in the
District of Columbia in January . . . .” Amend. Compl.
¶ 15, ECF No. 1-1, Page ID 14. Sindelar removed to this
Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2679(d)(2),  on the basis of
Widfelt's certified mail allegation.
complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of
the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to
relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). To satisfy this
requirement, a plaintiff must plead “enough facts to
state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”
Corrado v. Life Inv'rs Ins. Co. of Am., 804 F.3d
915, 917 (8th Cir. 2015) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “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.”
Barton v. Taber, 820 F.3d 958, 964 (8th Cir. 2016)
(quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678
(2009)). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a
cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do
not suffice.” Zink v. Lombardi, 783 F.3d 1089,
1098 (8th Cir. 2015) (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at
678), cert. denied, 135 S.Ct. 2941 (2015). The
complaint's factual allegations must be “sufficient
to ‘raise a right to relief above the speculative
level.'” McDonough v. Anoka Cty., 799 F.3d
931, 946 (8th Cir. 2015) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S.
at 555). The Court must accept factual allegations as true,
but it is not required to accept any “legal conclusion
couched as a factual allegation.” Brown v. Green
Tree Servicing LLC, 820 F.3d 371, 373 (8th Cir. 2016)
(quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678). Thus, “[a]
pleading that offers ‘labels and conclusions' or
‘a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of
action will not do.'” Ash v. Anderson
Merchandisers, LLC, 799 F.3d 957, 960 (8th Cir. 2015)
(quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678), cert.
denied, 136 S.Ct. 804 (2016).
motion to dismiss, courts must rule “on the assumption
that all the allegations in the complaint are true, ”
and “a well-pleaded complaint may proceed even if it
strikes a savvy judge that actual proof of those facts is
improbable, and ‘that a recovery is very remote and
unlikely.'” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 &
556 (quoting Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236
(1974)). “Determining whether a complaint states a
plausible claim for relief . . . [is] a context-specific task
that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial
experience and common sense.” Mickelson v. Cty. of
Ramsey, 823 F.3d 918, 923 (8th Cir. 2016) (alternation
in original) (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679).
Motion to Recuse, ECF No. 19, and Motion to Strike, ECF No.
filed an “Objection to Judge Camp, ” ECF No. 19,
in which he “object[ed] to appointment of Judge Camp in
this matter for the reason of seeming indifferen[t] in a
previously filed case . . . involving break ins by the City
of Atkinson.” The Court interprets the objection as a
motion for recusal. Widtfeldt appears to argue that recusal
is warranted because of prior rulings by the undersigned
judge in other cases to which Widtfeldt was a party. Because
“judicial rulings alone almost never constitute a valid
basis for a bias or partiality motion, ” Liteky v.
United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994) (citing
United States v. Grinnell Corp., 384 U.S. 563, 583
(1966)), Widtfeldt's motion will be denied, and the
United States' motion to strike, ECF No. 20, will be
denied, as moot.
Motions to Dismiss
Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 12
United States seeks dismissal on the basis that it has not
waived its sovereign immunity. In his Amended Complaint,
The U.S. Post Office is being added as a defendant and Jon
Sindelar of the O'Neill and Atkinson offices, due to
theft or diversion of a Widtfeldt certified mail from Judge
Sullivan of the U.S. District Court in the District of
Columbia in January, and probably many hundreds of certified
mailings before that, probably being forwarded to Janet
Krotter Chvala ...