United States District Court, D. Nebraska
MICHAEL J. LONGS II, Plaintiff,
STEVEN D. WHERRY, AMY GOODRO, and LINCOLN POLICE DEPARTMENT, Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Richard G. Kopf, Senior United States District Judge.
filed a Complaint on November 5, 2018, when he was
incarcerated at the Lancaster County Department of
Corrections. (Filing No. 1.) He has been given leave
to proceed in forma pauperis. (Filing No. 6.) 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.
For purposes of this initial review, the Complaint includes
Plaintiff's supplemental filing (filing no. 8).
SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT
brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against
Steven D. Wherry (“Wherry”), Amy Goodro
(“Goodro”), and the Lincoln Police Department.
On November 28, 2017, Steven D. Wherry for the Lincoln Police
Department knowingly, willingly, and intentionally perjured
himself under oath on the stand for the state's
prosecutor, Amy Goodro. He fabricated an arrest warrant under
oath as well after reading reports from Officer Peth, [and]
he perjured himself and left out vital information in order
to arrest and kidnap me.
(Filing No. 1 (spelling, capitalization, and
punctuation corrected).) Plaintiff attached to his
supplemental filing (filing no. 8) the transcript
from the preliminary hearing in State v. Longs, No.
CR17-10082, in the County Court of Lancaster County,
Nebraska, which contains Wherry's testimony at the
hearing and a copy of the arrest affidavit signed by Wherry
regarding the investigation of Plaintiff for the alleged
assault of his intimate partner.
further alleged that Goodro “helped author the
fabricated affidavit” and both Goodro and Wherry
“have threatened the alleged victim” with Wherry
telling the victim “he would ‘doctor' up the
reports after she told him [Plaintiff] was in fact
innocent.” (Filing No. 1.)
alleged he was jailed, assaulted, damaged, and injured as a
result of Defendants' actions and asks for $100, 000,
000.00 in damages as relief.
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).