Barnum v. Bode

Barnum v. Bode · United States District Court for the District of Nebraska · May 1, 2025 · No. 8:25-cv-00210

Summary

This Memorandum and Order from the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska addresses a pro se plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis and conducts an initial screening of her complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). The court finds that the plaintiff’s allegations against a police officer fail to meet federal pleading standards and do not state a plausible claim for relief. However, rather than dismissing the case outright, the court grants the motion to proceed in forma pauperis and provides the plaintiff thirty days to file an amended complaint that complies with substantive and procedural requirements.

Court
United States District Court for the District of Nebraska
Writing for the Court
Joseph F. Bataillon
Jurisdiction
United States District Court for the District of Nebraska
Decision date
May 1, 2025
Docket number
8:25-cv-00210
Procedural posture
Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis and the court's initial review for possible dismissal under 28 U.S.C. §1915(e).
Standard of review
Plaintiff's complaint is evaluated under the plausibility standard of Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, with liberal construction for pro se pleadings.
Precedential value
nonprecedential
Disposition
dismissed

Topics

motions to dismisssummary judgmentcivil procedure

Practice areas

civil procedurecivil rights

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Plaintiff's pro se complaint states a plausible claim sufficient to survive dismissal under 28 U.S.C. §1915(e).
  2. Whether Plaintiff may proceed in forma pauperis.

Holdings

  1. The complaint does not allege sufficient facts to state a plausible claim and therefore must be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. §1915(e).
  2. Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis is granted.

Key quotations

“The 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.’” (at 1)
“Although pro se pleadings are to be construed liberally, pro se litigants are not excused from failing to comply with substantive and procedural law.” (at 2)

Factual background

Plaintiff Antonia Lachele Barnum alleges that Officer T. Bode forced her to sign a ticket and provide a phone number, that she recorded a thirty‑minute video of the traffic stop, and that the officer threatened to take her body. She asserts causes of action for domestic terrorism, false statements under 18 U.S.C. §1001, and threats of kidnapping, but provides no factual details supporting those claims.

Procedural history

Plaintiff filed a pro se complaint and a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. The district court is conducting an initial review of the complaint for sufficiency and jurisdiction.

Remand instructions

Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint within 30 days (by June 2, 2025). Failure to do so will result in dismissal of the case.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…