Holloway v. Vetran's Affairs United State Government, of Tialand Refugee's within the U.S.
8:21-cv-00141
| D. Neb. | Aug 9, 2021Background
- Plaintiff Walter Henderson Holloway, a pro se non-prisoner, was granted in forma pauperis status and filed a complaint naming multiple defendants including federal agencies and Omaha Public Schools.
- The complaint and later filings were largely unintelligible and consisted of disjointed phrases and non-sequiturs (e.g., claims about food cures, vaccinations, and veterans’ issues).
- The court conducted an initial screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) to determine whether the complaint should be summarily dismissed.
- The court found no coherent federal statutory or constitutional claim and concluded the allegations were baseless, fanciful, and without legal or factual foundation.
- The court dismissed the action as frivolous and denied leave to amend as futile, entering dismissal with prejudice; it noted Holloway had multiple prior frivolous filings in the District of Nebraska.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether complaint states a plausible claim | Holloway asserted assorted health/public-water/veteran-related grievances and purported cures | No coherent defense presented; claims fail to identify legal basis | Dismissed as failing to state a claim and as frivolous under § 1915(e)(2)(B) |
| Whether court should permit amendment | Holloway submitted additional incoherent filings purporting to amend | No meaningful amendment to rebut defects | Leave to amend denied as futile |
| Whether initial screening under § 1915(e)(2) requires dismissal | Plaintiff proceeds IFP and submitted complaint | Screening statute requires dismissal of frivolous or non-cognizable claims | Court applied § 1915(e)(2) and dismissed the action |
| Whether dismissal should be with prejudice given plaintiff's history | Holloway has filed multiple prior frivolous actions | Defendants did not oppose but court considered plaintiff's filing history | Dismissal with prejudice due to repeated frivolous filings and futility of amendment |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (establishes the plausibility pleading standard)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (applies and explains Twombly plausibility standard)
- Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25 (1992) (IFP complaints may be dismissed as frivolous; courts may disregard delusional allegations)
- Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989) (defines frivolousness standard for complaints)
- Jones v. Norris, 310 F.3d 610 (8th Cir. 2002) (complaint is frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis in law or fact)
- Topchian v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 760 F.3d 843 (8th Cir. 2014) (notice pleading and liberal construction of pro se complaints)
- Hopkins v. Saunders, 199 F.3d 968 (8th Cir. 1999) (pro se complaints must still give fair notice of claims)
- Silva v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 762 F.3d 711 (8th Cir. 2014) (district courts may deny amendment as futile)
- Reuter v. Jax Ltd., Inc., 711 F.3d 918 (8th Cir. 2013) (frivolous claims are futile and amendment may be denied)