United States District Court, D. Nebraska
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
RICHARD G. KOPF SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dale Barta (“Barta”), who appears pro se, filed
his complaint on November 19, 2019. (Filing 1) He has been
given leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (Filing 5) 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).
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).
complaint is short on facts, but long on exhibits (51 pages
worth). Barta is attempting to revive two actions that were
previously filed in this court, Dale L. Barta v. Jack
Todd, Greg Todd, and James D. Gotschall, Attorney, Case
No. 8:06CV515 (filed on July 27, 2006), and Dale Barta v.
Tami Yeomans, Rodney O'Neil, Kurby Alloway, Trevor Kruse,
Duane Brockman, Linda Heermann, Dale Crandell, and Larry
Donner, Case No. 8:16CV242 (filed on May 31,
2016). The only change in parties is that an
unidentified “Second Depty” has replaced Loup
County Sheriff Trevor Kraus (or “Kruse”) as a
defendant in this action.
2006 action, Barta claimed the defendants violated the
discharge injunction of the Bankruptcy Act, 11 U.S.C. §
524, when they obtained a state court judgment against him in
2000 and removed cattle from his farm and sold them in 2002.
The matter was referred to the United States Bankruptcy Court
for the District of Nebraska on July 31, 2006, as being
related to Barta's Chapter 12 bankruptcy proceeding, BK
96-40899. On December 1, 2006, in adversary case A06-4061,
the bankruptcy court granted summary judgment in favor of the
2016 action, Barta claimed to be the owner of property (by
virtue of a federal land patent) for which Tami Yeomans is
the owner of record and Ryan O'Neel (or
“O'Neil”) is the tenant. Barta complained
that Garfield County Clerk Linda Heermann (or
“Heerman”) and Garfield County Attorney Dale
Crandall (or “Crandell”) refused to record
documents that the plaintiff attempted to file asserting
ownership of the property, that when Barta attempted to stop
O'Neel from using the property by parking his truck in
the way, Garfield County Deputy Sheriff Kirby Holloway (or
“Kurby Alloway”) and another officer (incorrectly
identified as Kraus) had the truck towed by Duane Brockman of
Duane's Auto Repair, and that Garfield County Sheriff
Larry Donner didn't stop them. Barta sought to recover
damages, asserting that Heermann and Crandall violated his
unspecified civil rights, that Yeomans and O'Neel were
trespassing, and that towing his truck was unjustified
without a court order. In a memorandum and order entered on
January 30, 2017, the court dismissed the claims against the
five county officials (Heermann, Crandall, Holloway, Kraus,
and Donner) for lack of proper service and dismissed the
claims against the other three defendants (Yeomans,
O'Neel, and Brockman) for lack of subject matter
that background in mind, the court will attempt to make sense
of Barta's pleading in the present action. In the portion
of the caption where the Rule 7(a) designation (i.e.
“Complaint”) would normally appear, Barta instead
lists the following concepts or theories of recovery:
CIVIL RIGHT'S VOLATION
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Crime Victim's rights, Refusing to file homestead and
land patent ESTOPPLE, Title 18-1964 18 U.S. Code 3771.
(Filing 1, p. 1) (spelling and punctuation as in original)
And the body of the complaint reads in its entirety:
COMES NOW, Dale Barta, Pauper: Motion of Statement of
Fact's. 18 U.S. Code 3771 Code Victim's rights.
Nebraska fully recognizes Land Patents, Homestead, as Proof
of ownership, Nebraska Revised Statues 25-1283. Crime
Victim's rights, asked ...