United States District Court, D. Nebraska
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
RICHARD G. KOPF, SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
filed his Complaint on December 26, 2018. (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.
SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT
brings this negligence action against Defendant Catholic
Health Initiatives alleging Defendant committed
“[a]ssault, ” “[f]elony false
imprisonment” and “[o]mission supervision”
on May 1, 2018, at Lasting Hope Recovery Center. (Filing
No. 1 at CM/ECF p. 4.) Plaintiff seeks $10, 000, 000.00
in damages as relief.
APPLICABLE LEGAL 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 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).
DISCUSSION OF CLAIMS
Rule of Civil Procedure 8 requires that every complaint
contain “a short and plain statement of the claim
showing that the pleader is entitled to relief” and
that “each allegation . . . be simple, concise, and
direct.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2), (d)(1). A
complaint must state enough to “‘give the
defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the
grounds upon which it rests.’” Erickson v.
Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (quoting
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). While complaints filed by
pro se litigants are held to less stringent standards than
those applied to formal pleadings drafted by lawyers, see
Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), even pro se
litigants must comply with the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. Here, Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to meet
this minimal pleading standard. Moreover, the
Complaint’s allegations fail to establish the
court’s subject-matter jurisdiction.
plaintiff must sufficiently state a claim for relief that
contains, “a short and plain statement of the grounds
for the court’s jurisdiction, unless the court has
jurisdiction and the claim needs no new jurisdictional
support.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1).
Subject-matter jurisdiction may be proper in federal court
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, commonly referred
to as “diversity of citizenship” jurisdiction,
when “the citizenship of each plaintiff is different
from the citizenship of each defendant.” Ryan v.
Schneider Nat’l Carriers, Inc., 263 F.3d 816, 819
(8th Cir. 2001) (citation omitted). Subject-matter
jurisdiction may also be proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1331
where a plaintiff asserts “[a] non-frivolous claim of a
right or remedy under a federal statute, ” commonly
referred to as “federal question” jurisdiction.
Northwest South Dakota Prod. Credit Ass’n v.
Smith, 784 F.2d 323, 325 (8th Cir. 1986).
Plaintiff has not alleged the parties are citizens of
different states. In fact, Plaintiff alleges he is a citizen
of Nebraska and Defendant is a corporation incorporated under
the laws of Nebraska with its principal place of business
also in Nebraska. In addition, he did not allege a cause of
action under federal law. Therefore, the Complaint’s
allegations fail to establish that jurisdiction exists under
section 1331 or section 1332 and the court will dismiss this
action without prejudice. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3)
(“If the court determines at any time that it lacks
subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the
action.”). The court will not provide Plaintiff with an
opportunity to file an amended complaint because the court
has concluded that to do so would be futile.
THEREFORE ORDERED that: This matter is dismissed without
prejudice. The court will enter ...