IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

SUSANNE BECKER,

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

JAMES THOMAS HURD,

Defendant.

8:23CV208

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s pro se Complaint, Filing No. 1. Plaintiff, 

a non-prisoner proceeding pro se, has been given leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 

Filing No. 5. Also before the Court are Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Counsel, Filing No. 

16, and Motion captioned as a “Request for Transfer Admissions,” Filing No. 17. The 

Court is required to conduct an initial review of in forma pauperis complaints pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). 

I. SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT

Plaintiff Susanne Becker brings this action against James Thomas Hurd, her exhusband, for failure to pay $71,400 in child support, $8,900 in medical bills, and 

$3,000,000 in lost wages and retirement. Filing No. 1 at 3. Plaintiff asserts that she is 

entitled to these damages because she supported Defendant and their children and she 

was a victim of abuse. Filing No. 1 at 4. Plaintiff also asserts that Defendant filed false 

neglect and abuse charges against Plaintiff and removed Plaintiff’s children from Texas 

to California without proper notification. Filing No. 1 at 4. Plaintiff seeks $3 million in 

damages. Filing No. 1 at 4. 

8:23-cv-00208-JFB-PRSE Doc # 18 Filed: 12/12/23 Page 1 of 6 - Page ID # 73
2

II. APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS ON INITIAL REVIEW

The Court is required to review in forma pauperis complaints to determine whether 

summary dismissal is appropriate. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). The Court must dismiss a 

complaint or any portion of it that states a frivolous or malicious claim, that fails to state a 

claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seeks monetary relief from a defendant 

who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). 

Pro se plaintiffs must set forth enough factual allegations to “nudge[] their claims 

across the line from conceivable to plausible,” or “their complaint must be dismissed.”

Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 569-70 (2007); see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 

556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (“A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual 

content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable 

for the misconduct alleged.”). 

“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.’” Topchian v. JPMorgan Chase 

Bank, N.A., 760 F.3d 843, 848 (8th Cir. 2014) (quoting Hopkins v. Saunders, 199 F.3d 

968, 973 (8th Cir. 1999)). However, “[a] pro se complaint must be liberally construed, 

and pro se litigants are held to a lesser pleading standard than other parties.” Topchian, 

760 F.3d at 849 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 

III. DISCUSSION

The Court has carefully reviewed Plaintiff's Complaint, keeping in mind that 

complaints filed by pro se litigants are held to less stringent standards than those applied 

to formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). 

8:23-cv-00208-JFB-PRSE Doc # 18 Filed: 12/12/23 Page 2 of 6 - Page ID # 74
3

“Although pro se pleadings are to be construed liberally, pro se litigants are not excused 

from failing to comply with substantive and procedural law.” Burgs v. Sissel, 745 F.2d 

526, 528 (8th Cir. 1984). Additionally, “[t]hough pro se complaints are to be construed 

liberally, they still must allege sufficient facts to support the claims advanced.” Stone v. 

Harry, 364 F.3d 912, 914 (8th Cir. 2004) (internal citations omitted); see also Dunn v. 

White, 880 F.2d 1188, 1197 (10th Cir. 1989) (“[W]e will not supply additional facts, nor 

will we construct a legal theory for plaintiff that assumes facts that have not been 

pleaded”); Cunningham v. Ray, 648 F.2d 1185, 1186 (8th Cir. 1981) (“[P]ro se litigants 

must set [a claim] forth in a manner which, taking the pleaded facts as true, states a claim 

as a matter of law.”). A complaint must state enough to “‘give the defendant fair notice of 

what the ... claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 

89, 93 (2007) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)).

Plaintiff’s Complaint, even construed liberally, does not comply with the general 

rules of pleading. First, in assessing whether a complaint contains sufficient facts, the 

Court may disregard legal conclusions that are stated as factual allegations. See Iqbal, 

556 U.S. at 678. Further, even though pro se complaints are construed liberally, they still 

must allege sufficient facts to support the claims asserted. See Harry, 364 F.3d at 914. 

Plaintiff’s allegations are predominantly legal conclusions about her ex-husband’s alleged 

violations of Plaintiff’s legal rights, and the injury he caused Plaintiff. However, the 

Complaint provides few facts to give context for some of her claims or support how the 

violations occurred. The conclusory allegations that Defendant violated the law are not 

entitled to an assumption of truth. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Complaint is subject to 

dismissal. 

8:23-cv-00208-JFB-PRSE Doc # 18 Filed: 12/12/23 Page 3 of 6 - Page ID # 75
4

Second, Plaintiff's claim appears subject to dismissal under the domestic-relations 

doctrine. It is well-settled that the “whole subject of the domestic relations of husband 

and wife, parent and child, belongs to the laws of the states, and not to the laws of the 

United States.” In re Burrus, 136 U.S. 586, 593-94 (1890). The United States Supreme 

Court has recognized a domestic-relations exception “to the jurisdiction of the federal 

courts in light of long-held understandings and policy considerations.” Abel v. Abel, No. 

8:19CV347, 2019 WL 4203521, at *1 (D. Neb. Sept. 5, 2019) (citing Ankenbrandt v. 

Richards, 504 U.S. 689, 694-95 (1992)). If Plaintiff seeks relief by changing any provision 

of her divorce decree, the Court would be required to entangle itself into issues of state 

divorce law, an area in which it does not have jurisdiction. See El v. Ricketts, No. 

8:18CV327, 2018 WL 4006770, at *1 (D. Neb. Aug. 22, 2018).

V. MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL

There is no constitutional or statutory right to appointed counsel in a civil case. 

Ward v. Smith, 721 F.3d 940, 942 (8th Cir. 2013) (per curiam). A district court “may 

request an attorney to represent” an indigent civil litigant, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), but it 

has a “good deal of discretion” in deciding whether to do so, Chambers v. Pennycook, 

641 F.3d 898, 909 (8th Cir. 2011). “Relevant criteria for determining whether counsel 

should be requested include the factual and legal complexity of the case, the plaintiff’s 

ability to investigate the facts and to present the claims, and the presence or absence of 

conflicting testimony.” Recca v. Omaha Police Dep’t, 859 Fed. Appx. 3, 4 (8th Cir. 2021)

(unpublished) (citing Davis v. Scott, 94 F.3d 444, 447 (8th Cir. 1996)); Phillips v. Jasper 

Cty. Jail, 437 F.3d 791, 794 (8th Cir. 2006). Having carefully considered the record, the 

Court will not appoint counsel at this time.

8:23-cv-00208-JFB-PRSE Doc # 18 Filed: 12/12/23 Page 4 of 6 - Page ID # 76
5

V. “REQUEST TO TRANSFER ADMISSIONS”

Plaintiff’s Motion, captioned as a "Request to Transfer Admissions," is largely 

indiscernible. Plaintiff submitted the Motion in numerous pending cases before the Court, 

but fails to specify how it is relevant to the present case. Although the Motion asserts 

Plaintiff is entitled to "reinstatement," it does not identify the nature of the reinstatement 

or provide a legal basis for seeking relief. Even construed liberally, the Motion lacks a

coherent statement of the relief sought and is therefore denied.

V. CONCLUSION

Plaintiff’s Complaint does not comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 

nor does it allege sufficient facts to state a plausible claim. Thus, no claim is stated upon 

which relief may be granted. Consequently, Plaintiff's Complaint is subject to dismissal 

under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), and the Court will dismiss this matter without prejudice and 

without leave to amend. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:

1. This matter is dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim upon 

which relief may be granted. 

2. Judgment shall be entered by a separate document. 

3. Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Counsel, Filing No. 16, is denied.

4. Plaintiff’s Motion captioned as a “Request for Transfer Admissions,” Filing 

No. 17, is denied.

8:23-cv-00208-JFB-PRSE Doc # 18 Filed: 12/12/23 Page 5 of 6 - Page ID # 77
6

Dated this 12th day of December, 2023.

BY THE COURT:

Joseph F. Bataillon

Senior United States District Judge

8:23-cv-00208-JFB-PRSE Doc # 18 Filed: 12/12/23 Page 6 of 6 - Page ID # 78