Looper v. Cluck, 6:19-cv-00158

Plaintiffs Stephanie and Kelvin Looper (pro se) sued Cherokee County sheriff’s deputies Austin Cluck and Ryan Robison, alleging the deputies unlawfully kidnapped their children on March 27, 2018.
Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (IFP); the court granted IFP status.
The complaint invoked civil-rights claims but the factual allegations were sparse and framed as conclusory.
The court reviewed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and the Iqbal/Twombly pleading standard for plausibility.
The court noted Plaintiffs’ history of multiple prior filings in the district, several dismissed as frivolous, and warned against continued frivolous litigation.
The court concluded the complaint was frivolous and failed to state a claim, and dismissed the action with prejudice.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether complaint states a plausible civil-rights claim for kidnapping/constitutional violations	Looper alleges deputies kidnapped their children (claims asserted generally)	Deputies implicitly argue (via court analysis) that allegations are conclusory and lack factual support	Complaint is legally and factually deficient; fails to state a claim
Whether the action is frivolous under § 1915(e)(2)	Looper presses claims despite limited factual support	Defendants assert (by implication) claims lack merit; court reviews sua sponte	Court finds action frivolous and dismisses under § 1915(e)(2)
Whether sua sponte dismissal without prior notice is appropriate	Looper did not receive notice; seeks to proceed	Court considers precedent allowing sua sponte dismissal where claim cannot succeed	Sua sponte dismissal appropriate because claim cannot possibly succeed
Whether a dismissal should be with prejudice	Looper seeks relief; no viable factual or legal basis offered	Defendants rely on dismissal standards; court assesses prior filings and merits	Court dismisses the action with prejudice due to frivolity and failure to state a claim

Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (liberal construction of pro se pleadings)
Lonsdale v. United States, 919 F.2d 1440 (10th Cir. 1990) (frivolousness of claims lacking merit)
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (frivolous standard includes inarguable legal conclusions and fanciful factual allegations)
Trujillo v. Williams, 465 F.3d 1210 (10th Cir. 2006) (requirement to dismiss IFP claims that are frivolous or fail to state a claim)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading must state a claim plausible on its face)
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility standard and rejection of bare allegations)
Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265 (courts need not accept legal conclusions as true)
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (notice pleading for pro se complaints but must meet minimal requirements)
Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106 (sua sponte dismissal when pleadings clearly frivolous)
McKinney v. State of Oklahoma, 925 F.2d 363 (trial court may dismiss sua sponte where claimant cannot possibly win relief)