United States District Court, D. Nebraska
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
RICHARD G. KOPF SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
filed a Complaint on December 18, 2017. (Filing No.
1.) He has been given leave to proceed in forma
pauperis. (Filing No. 7.) 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 City of Lincoln, Nebraska
(“City of Lincoln”); the City of Lincoln Police
Department (“Lincoln Police Department”); and
several City of Lincoln Police Officers in their individual
and official capacities. (Filing No. 1.) Plaintiff
is currently confined at the Tecumseh State Correctional
Institution in Tecumseh, Nebraska. (Id. at CM/ECF pp.
Complaint, Plaintiff claims that he was subject to an
unreasonable search and seizure and excessive force in
violation of his rights under the 4th and 14th Amendments.
(Id. at CM/ECF p. 5.) Specifically, Plaintiff
The Defendants conspired [and] forced entry inside [his] home
to arrest [him] without an arrest warrant or search warrant
or without consent or exigent circumstances resulting in
psychological harm and physical harm of placing [him] in
detention in the Lancaster County Jail and then obtained a
search warrant to search [his] home while he was a mental[ly]
(Id. at CM/ECF pp. 4-5.) Plaintiff also cites the
Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42
U.S.C. §§ 12101-12213, as legal authority for his
claims. (Id. at CM/ECF p. 5.)
alleges that he has suffered a number of harms, including
physical injury, “mental distress, emotional
disturbance, excessive force, [and] false arrest.”
(Id.) Plaintiff seeks to recover monetary damages.
(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. See28
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).