IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

AVA SOLOMON,

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

ALLSTATE INSURANCE IDEMNITY 

POLICY 000000886169059,

Defendant.

8:23CV207

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Plaintiff Ava Solomon filed a Complaint on May 22, 2023, Filing No. 1, as well as 

a motion to “Serve Notice of Mediation Prior to Preliminary Trial” (the “Motion for 

Mediation”), Filing No. 8, and two motions for hearing, Filing No. 13, Filing No. 14. 

Plaintiff has been given leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Filing No. 6. The Court now 

conducts an initial review of Plaintiffs’ pro se Complaint to determine whether summary 

dismissal is appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), and considers the motions currently 

before this Court.

For the reasons set forth below all motions shall be denied as premature. Further, 

the Court finds that summary dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) is appropriate, but in 

lieu of dismissal, the Court sua sponte grants Plaintiff leave to amend.

8:23-cv-00207-JFB-PRSE Doc # 15 Filed: 08/04/23 Page 1 of 9 - Page ID # 91
2

I. MOTIONS FOR MEDIATION AND HEARINGS

Plaintiff filed a Motion for Mediation on June 19, 2023, seeking to enter mediation 

in the current matter prior to trial, Filing No. 8, and two motions for hearing filed on July 

2, 2023, Filing No. 13, and July 30, 2023, Filing No. 14, which this Court construes as 

seeking a preliminary hearing in the above referenced matter. 

At this time all motions are premature. As further discussed infra, the Court finds 

on initial review that in its current state Plaintiff’s Complaint is subject to dismissal for 

failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted, and that to proceed Plaintiff must 

file an amended complaint which adequately states a claim. As such, until an amended 

complaint is filed and this Court has determined Plaintiff’s Complaint may proceed, any 

motions for mediation or hearings are premature and shall be denied.

II. INITIAL REVIEW

A. Summary of the Complaint

Plaintiff describes the nature of the suit as arising from “insurance,” a “car 

accident,” and “other civil rights,” naming “ALLSATE INSURANCE IDEMNITY POLICY 

000000886169059” (the “Allstate Policy”),1 Allstate Insurance Company (“Allstate 

Insurance”), and Ethan Chavez (“Chavez”) as defendants. Filing No. 1–2. 

The totality of the allegations set forth in the Complaint are as follows:

INTENTIONAL INSURANCE TORT VIOLATIONS, DISCRIMINATORY 

POLICE THAT ABRIDGED THE CVIL LIBERTIES OF ALLA AMERICANS, 

THE DEATH THREATS AND MISUSE OF POLICTICAL OFFICE, 

RECORDS, AND SETTLEMENT POLICY, BLACK MAIL, WHITE 

COLLARD PRINCIPLE BEHAVED INCONVENIENCE, THAT 

DISRIMINATORY PRACTICES, AND THE MISUSE OF INSURANCE IS 

1

It is unclear if Plaintiff intended to name both the Allstate Policy and Allstate Insurance as defendants as 

the Allstate Policy defendant is listed as the only defendant in the Complaint’s caption, but Allstate 

Insurance is named as a defendant in the body of the Complaint. Filing No. 1–2, 4. As such, the Court 

shall treat both the Allstate Policy and Allstate Insurance as defendants for the purposes of this initial review.

8:23-cv-00207-JFB-PRSE Doc # 15 Filed: 08/04/23 Page 2 of 9 - Page ID # 92
3

NOT AN ACT OF GOD BUT GREED AND THE FINEST 

DISINFRINGEMENT TO ANY RESPECTABLE COMPANY AND OR 

COMPANY THE MISUSE OF THE UNITED STATES VIA ALLSTATE 

VIOLATES THE UNITED PRINICIPLES THAT ARE FOREFATHERS 

TRIED TO PROTECT CIVIL RIGHT, EQUAL RIGHT AND [illegible as cut 

off]

2

Id. at 4 (spelling as in original).

Plaintiff alleges the suit is properly before this Court based on federal question and 

diversity jurisdiction. Id. at 3. As relief, Plaintiffs seeks $200,000 for “ALL LOST WAGES 

AND EXPENSES PUNITIVE DAMAGES AND PAIN AND SUFFERING AND SECURITY 

FOR FUTURE YEARS.” Id. at 4.

B. Applicable 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). 

“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)). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 requires that every complaint 

contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to 

relief” and that “each allegation ... be simple, concise, and direct.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), 

(d)(1). A complaint must state enough to “‘give the defendant fair notice of what the ... 

2 The Court notes it appears the cut off potion of the allegation may read “AMERICAN LIBERTIES.” 

8:23-cv-00207-JFB-PRSE Doc # 15 Filed: 08/04/23 Page 3 of 9 - Page ID # 93
4

claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007)

(quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). 

C. Jurisdiction

Plaintiff alleges her Complaint may proceed before this Court under both federal 

question and diversity jurisdiction. Filing No. 1 at 3.

Federal district courts have original jurisdiction over “all civil actions arising under 

the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The mere 

suggestion of a federal question is not sufficient to establish the jurisdiction of federal 

courts; rather, the federal court’s jurisdiction must affirmatively appear clearly and 

distinctly. Bilal v. Kaplan, 904 F.2d 14, 15 (8th Cir. 1990). Where a complaint “totally 

avoids any allegation of fact tending to show the existence of a federal question . . . [b]ut 

the complaint is so unintelligible to allow even this conclusion”, federal question 

jurisdiction is not adequately plead. Koll v. Wayzata State Bank, 397 F.2d 124, 127 (8th 

Cir. 1968) (internal citations omitted).

Here, Plaintiff alleges that her claims arise under the “civil rights, fair housing, and 

equal opportunity acts,” Filing No. 1 at 3 (which for the purposes of review the Court 

presumes to reference federal acts) but provides no factual allegations in support. As 

such, as currently pleaded, Plaintiff fails to adequately establish federal question 

jurisdiction. 

Federal district courts also have original jurisdiction over civil actions between 

citizens of different states where the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00. 28 

U.S.C. § 1332(a). For purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1332, “diversity of citizenship” means that 

“the citizenship of each plaintiff is different from the citizenship of each defendant.” Ryan 

8:23-cv-00207-JFB-PRSE Doc # 15 Filed: 08/04/23 Page 4 of 9 - Page ID # 94
5

v. Schneider Nat’l Carriers, Inc., 263 F.3d 816, 819 (8th Cir. 2001) (citation omitted). 

Some factors considered when determining citizenship of individuals for the purpose of 

diversity are “where the person resides; where the person works; where the person votes; 

the [location of the] States that issues [sic] the person's driver's license; where the person 

seeks medical treatment; where the person pays taxes; and what address the person lists 

as his address on various documents.” Salveson v. Miller, 489 F. Supp. 2d 963, 966 

(D.S.D. 2007) (citing Altimore v. Mount Mercy College, 420 F.3d 763, 769 (8th Cir. 2005)). 

“Residence, however, does not equate with citizenship.” Id. (citing Janzen v. Goos, 302 

F.2d 421, 426 (8th Cir. 1962)). 

Here, while Plaintiff alleges she is a citizen of Nebraska, and while she may 

plausibly allege that her citizenship is different from the citizenship of each defendant, her 

Complaint as plead is deficient. Plaintiff only lists the citizenship of a single defendant, 

Allstate Insurance, as being incorporated in Ohio, but omits its principal place of business, 

and does not allege any citizenship for defendants Chavez3 or the Allstate Policy. Filing 

No. 1 at 2, 4. 

Therefore, the Court finds subject-matter jurisdiction is not proper in this action 

pursuant to either 28 U.S.C. § 1331 or 28 U.S.C. § 1332. As such, Plaintiff must amend 

her complaint setting forth adequate jurisdictional allegations in order to proceed before 

this Court.

3 Plaintiff lists Chavez’ current address is in Nevada, Filing No. 1 at 2, however, for jurisdictional purposes 

listing an address where a Plaintiff may be located does not necessarily equate to citizenship. Janzen, 302 

F.2d at 426.

8:23-cv-00207-JFB-PRSE Doc # 15 Filed: 08/04/23 Page 5 of 9 - Page ID # 95
6

D. Discussion of Claims

While “[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), pro se plaintiffs must set forth enough factual 

allegations to “nudge[] their claims across the line from conceivable to plausible,” or their 

complaint shall 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.”). A claim is plausible 

only if it allows a reviewing court “to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is 

liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 668. 

Upon review, Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to meet this minimal pleading standard. 

Specifically, Plaintiff’s Complaint contains no allegations of who did what to whom or 

when any of the alleged violations occurred, instead making only vague and factually 

unsupported references to various torts, federal and Nevada state statutes, and “judicial 

ethical violations.” See Filing No. 1 at 3–4. In fact, aside from selecting the check boxes 

for “insurance” and “car accident” on the civil cover sheet form, there is little indication in 

the Complaint of what events occurred giving rise to the Complaint. Simply put, Plaintiff’s

Complaint is woefully deficient as it contains no allegations of who did what to whom, 

nevertheless when the alleged wrongful conduct took place. 

Plaintiff has, however, filed multiple documents, see Filing No. 9 (docketed as 

“PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW”), Filing No. 10

(docketed as “DISCLAIMER regarding SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION to Intervene”), and 

8:23-cv-00207-JFB-PRSE Doc # 15 Filed: 08/04/23 Page 6 of 9 - Page ID # 96
7

Filing No. 11 (docked as “Certificate regarding SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION to Intervene”), 

with various attachments containing recitations of legal principles, and what appear to be 

letters to Allstate Insurance referencing an insurance policy denial, which may have been 

intended to supplement the Complaint. Review of these documents provides little 

support.

While one of the attachments references “VEHICULAR MURDER IN THE 1ST

DEGREED [sic],” and states that “ETHAN CHAVEZ HAS AN INSURANCE POLICY 

THAT WAS VALID AT TIME HE KILLED MY SON ALLSTATE 000000886169059,” see

Filing No. 9-2 at 1, this is not enough for Plaintiff’s Complaint to proceed. 

While “[t]he filings of pro se litigants shall be read with a generous eye . . . they 

must still comply with the basic pleading essentials and allege sufficient facts on which a 

recognized legal claim could be based.” Mulholland in interest of M.M. v. Aurora R-VIII 

Sch. Dist., No. 3:18-CV-03279-MDH, 2018 WL 11507771, at *1 (W.D. Mo. Dec. 17, 2018)

(citing Coleman v. Turner, 838 F.2d 1004, 1005 (8th Cir. 1988)). As discussed by the 

Sixth Circuit, courts “are not required to conjure up allegations not pleaded or guess at 

the nature of an argument.” See Brown v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 507 F. App'x 543, 547 

(6th Cir. 2012). Even considering Plaintiff’s supplemental filings, Plaintiff’s Complaint is 

deficient as this Court can only guess as to the facts which might support the claims and 

parties or how Plaintiff is connected to this case.

As such, Plaintiff shall have 30 days from the date of this Memorandum and Order 

to file an amended complaint that sufficiently describes her claims against each 

defendant. Plaintiff should be mindful to clearly explain what each Defendant did to her, 

when Defendants did it, how Defendants' actions harmed her, and what specific legal 

8:23-cv-00207-JFB-PRSE Doc # 15 Filed: 08/04/23 Page 7 of 9 - Page ID # 97
8

rights Plaintiff believes Defendants violated. If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint 

in accordance with this Memorandum and Order, her claims against Defendants will be 

dismissed without prejudice and without further notice. The Court reserves the right to 

conduct further review of Plaintiff’s claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) after she 

addresses the matters set forth in this Memorandum and Order. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED:

1. Plaintiff’s Motion for Mediation, Filing No. 8, and her two motions for 

hearing, Filing No. 13, Filing No. 14, are dismissed without prejudice.

2. Plaintiff shall have until 30 days from the date of this Memorandum and 

Order to file an amended complaint that clearly states a claim upon which relief may be 

granted against Defendants in accordance with this Memorandum and Order. If Plaintiff 

fail to file an amended complaint, her claims against Defendants will be dismissed without 

further notice.

3. The Clerk's Office is directed to send to Plaintiff a copy of the civil complaint 

form. Plaintiff is advised to attach additional pages if required to set forth her claims 

adequately. Failure to consolidate all claims into one document may result in the 

abandonment of claims. Plaintiff is warned that an amended complaint will supersede, 

not supplement, her prior pleadings.

4. The Clerk's Office is directed to set a pro se case management deadline in 

this case using the following text: September 5, 2023: Check for amended complaint.

5. Plaintiff shall keep the Court informed of her current address at all times 

while this case is pending. Failure to do so may result in dismissal without further notice.

8:23-cv-00207-JFB-PRSE Doc # 15 Filed: 08/04/23 Page 8 of 9 - Page ID # 98
9

Dated this 4th day of August, 2023.

BY THE COURT:

Joseph F. Bataillon

Senior United States District Judge

8:23-cv-00207-JFB-PRSE Doc # 15 Filed: 08/04/23 Page 9 of 9 - Page ID # 99