Kenneth W. Clark v. David Barber, John A. Vik, Captain, #902138; Kingswood, #2202; and Guthard, #22126

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Nebraska dismissed Kenneth W. Clark’s pro se civil rights complaint against David Barber and other defendants without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). The court found the complaint unintelligible, failed to connect specific defendants to alleged violations, did not satisfy Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, and could not support claims under Bivens or 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court also concluded that any challenge to a state-court real-property judgment was barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.

Holdings

1. Clark's Bivens claim failed because the complaint did not allege that any defendant was a federal official or acted under color of federal law.
2. The complaint failed to state a § 1983 claim because it did not identify a constitutional or federal statutory violation caused by a person acting under color of state law or connect any defendant to specific wrongful conduct.
3. The complaint failed to satisfy Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 because it did not provide a short, plain, simple, concise, and direct statement of the claims or the grounds for relief.
4. The district court lacked authority under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine to review, reverse, or alter the state-court judgment that apparently formed the basis of Clark's claims.
5. Dismissal without prejudice and without leave to amend was proper because the complaint failed to state a claim and the court concluded amendment would be futile in light of Clark's history of filing actions that failed to comply with federal pleading rules.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the complaint stated a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 or Bivens.
2. Whether the complaint satisfied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8's requirement that it provide a short, plain, and comprehensible statement showing entitlement to relief.
3. Whether the court had subject-matter jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine over claims apparently seeking relief from a state-court judgment.
4. Whether dismissal without prejudice and without leave to amend was appropriate because the complaint was unintelligible and amendment would be futile.

Disposition

dismissed