United States District Court, D. Nebraska
WALTER H. HOLLOWAY, Plaintiff,
DMV DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES, et al., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
RICHARD G. KOPF SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
filed his pro se Complaint on July 26, 2019 (Filing 1) and
has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 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).
SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT
Complaint is incomprehensible. Plaintiff appears to be
complaining he has not been able to obtain a REAL ID from the
Nebraska Department of Motor Vehicles, but the Complaint is a
collection of random grievances against persons and entities
who have no connection to the DMV.
APPLICABLE STANDARDS ON INITIAL REVIEW
court is required to review in forma pauperis complaints to
determine whether summary dismissal is appropriate. 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).
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).
court can identify no federal statutory or constitutional
provision that would give rise to plausible claim for relief
against the DMV or any named defendant, and has determined
this action should dismissed on initial review because
Plaintiff's allegations are completely unintelligible and
without a factual or legal basis. See Denton v.
Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32-34 (1992) (court may dismiss
complaint of plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis as
frivolous and may disregard clearly baseless, fanciful,
fantastic, or delusional factual allegations); Jones v.
Norris, 310 F.3d 610, 612 (8th Cir. 2002) (dismissing
complaint as frivolous and stating that “[a] complaint
is frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis in either law or
fact” (citing Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S.
319, 325 (1989))). Plaintiff will not be granted leave to
amend his complaints because such amendment would be futile.
See Silva v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 762 F.3d 711,
719-20 (8th Cir. 2014) (district courts can deny motions to
amend when such amendments would be futile, such as claims
that are frivolous or could not withstand a 12(b)(6) motion
to dismiss); Reuter v. Jax Ltd., Inc., 711 F.3d 918,
922 (8th Cir. 2013) (“frivolous claims are
IT IS ORDERED:
Plaintiff's Complaint (Filing 1) is dismissed with
prejudice as frivolous.
Judgment shall be entered ...