8:24-cv-00359
D. Neb.Sep 3, 2025Background
- Plaintiff Yukie Soto-Elliott (formerly Robert Christian Elliott) alleges defendants Don and Carol Shipley and their business Extreme Seal Experience, LLC posted online videos and materials falsely accusing Plaintiff of posing as a Navy SEAL, disclosing private addresses, and otherwise exposing Plaintiff to harassment and danger.
- Key cited postings include videos from August 8, 2018; May 6, 2020; and November 18, 2023; Plaintiff also supplied voicemail recordings that defendants played in videos.
- Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages, injunctive relief (including shutting down the Extreme Seal video blog), and asks the Court to order arrests and a federal protection order.
- Court screened the in forma pauperis complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and reviewed Plaintiff’s proposed amendment and voluminous evidentiary attachments.
- The Court found Plaintiff’s pleading unclear and deficient: no proper basis for federal-question jurisdiction, § 1983 claim fails for lack of state action, many cited federal criminal statutes do not create private causes of action, Wiretap Act claim is unsupported, and diversity jurisdiction was not adequately pleaded (LLC citizenship and amount in controversy absent).
- Court denied Plaintiff’s motions seeking arrest warrants and a federal protection order, denied the procedural Motion to Amend (for noncompliance and substantive defects), but granted leave to file an amended complaint within 30 days to attempt to cure jurisdictional and pleading defects.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Federal-question jurisdiction based on various federal statutes (criminal statutes, Title VI, 5 U.S.C. § 552a, 28 C.F.R. § 55.17, etc.) | Soto-Elliott invokes multiple federal statutes and regulations to ground jurisdiction and relief (hate-crime, stalking, perjury, Wiretap Act, privacy provisions). | Defendants implicitly argue (via Court analysis) these statutes/regulations either do not apply or do not provide private causes of action. | Court: federal criminal statutes and many cited regulations do not create private causes of action; Title VI and other cited rules inapplicable — federal-question jurisdiction not established. |
| 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil-rights claim | Plaintiff suggests civil-rights violations by defendants. | Defendants are private actors; no allegations of state action or conspiracy with state actors. | Court: § 1983 claim dismissed for failure to allege state action. |
| Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. §§ 2510–2522) | Plaintiff alleges voicemail recordings were published without consent. | Defendants played recordings of communications to which they were party or otherwise had consent; no plausible allegation recordings were intercepted for independent tort/criminal purpose. | Court: Wiretap Act claim fails — no facts showing unlawful interception for an independent tortious/criminal purpose. |
| Diversity jurisdiction (28 U.S.C. § 1332) | Plaintiff alleges defendants live out of Nebraska and seeks state-law tort relief. | Defendants’ citizenship not conceded; Extreme Seal is an LLC and Plaintiff has not pleaded all members’ citizenship or amount-in-controversy. | Court: diversity jurisdiction not adequately pleaded; Plaintiff given leave to amend to plead LLC membership and amount > $75,000. |
| State tort claims (defamation, false light, invasion of privacy) | Plaintiff alleges videos falsely accused her of posing as a SEAL and of sex-crime imprisonment and divulged private information causing harm. | Defendants implicitly rely on absence of clear allegations, truth/privilege, statute-of-limitations, and single-publication rule. | Court: plaintiff’s allegations are too vague to state plausible claims; many alleged publications (2018, 2020) are time-barred; claims require clearer pleading if amendment filed. |
| Requests for criminal enforcement and federal protective order | Plaintiff seeks Court-ordered arrests and a federal protection order. | Courts and prosecutors control criminal charging and local law enforcement — court cannot compel arrests; no federal statute authorizes a "Federal Protection Order" as requested. | Court: motions denied — court cannot initiate criminal prosecutions or issue the requested federal protection order. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (complaint must plead facts to make claims plausible).
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (legal conclusions unsupported by facts are disregarded).
- Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375 (1994) (federal jurisdictional principles).
- West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42 (1988) (§ 1983 requires action under color of state law).
- Carden v. Arkoma Assocs., 494 U.S. 185 (1990) (diversity citizenship of unincorporated entity depends on all members).
- United States v. Batchelder, 442 U.S. 114 (1979) (prosecutorial charging decisions are executive functions).
- Nieves v. Bartlett, 587 U.S. 391 (2019) (comments on prosecutorial discretion and related matters).
- United States v. Phillips, 540 F.2d 319 (8th Cir. 1976) (recording/divulgence principles under interception/privacy law).
- Meredith v. Gavin, 446 F.2d 794 (8th Cir. 1971) (interpretation of what constitutes "tortious" interception).
- Topchian v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 760 F.3d 843 (8th Cir. 2014) (Rule 8 notice pleading standard applied to identify claims).