United States District Court, D. Nebraska
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Richard G. Kopf Senior United States District Judge.
filed his Complaint on January 7, 2019. (Filing No.
1.) He has been given leave to proceed in forma
pauperis. (Filing No. 5.) 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
sues the State of Nebraska based on “Article
VIII” for unspecified claims arising out of
“Emergency Protective Custody” occurring at the
Douglas County Health Center, Catholic Health Initiatives,
the Omaha Police Department, the Papillion Police Department,
the Douglas County Sheriff's Office, and Lasting Hope
Recovery Center between 2017 and 2018. (Filing No. 1 at
CM/ECF pp. 3-5.) Plaintiff seeks $1 in damages for his
injuries which he identifies as “[d]eath.”
(Id. at CM/ECF p. 5.)
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).
court has carefully reviewed Plaintiff's Complaint,
keeping in mind that 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). However, as set forth above, even
pro se litigants must comply with the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. Federal 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). Here, Plaintiff's Complaint fails to meet
this minimal pleading standard.
the Eleventh Amendment bars private parties from suing a
state in federal court. Doe v. Nebraska, 345 F.3d
593, 597 (8th Cir. 2003). Thus, Plaintiff cannot maintain
suit against the State of Nebraska in this court.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: Plaintiff's Complaint
(filing no. 1) is dismissed without prejudice for
failure to state a claim. The court will enter judgment by a
 After Plaintiff was granted leave to
proceed in forma pauperis, he requested exemption from
payment of the PACER user fee which the court denied. (Filing
Nos. 6, 7, 9, & 11.)
Plaintiff filed an interlocutory appeal of the court's
denial of the exemption which was dismissed by the Eighth
Circuit Court of Appeals on April 19, ...