Source: http://ne.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180123_0000278.DNE.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 15:26:57+00:00

Document:
OMAHA NEBRASKA POLICE DEPART, UNKNOWN BIVENS, and JOHN DOE OFFICERS, Defendants.
Plaintiff filed a Complaint on October 5, 2017. (Filing No. 1.) He has been given leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (Filing No. 5.) The court now conducts an initial review of Plaintiff's Complaint to determine whether summary dismissal is appropriate under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e) and 1915A.
Plaintiff names the Omaha Police Department and Unknown Bivens and John Doe Officers as defendants in his Complaint brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff alleges that “defendants police” stopped his vehicle on the pretext of speeding and violating a stop sign but never issued him a traffic ticket. Plaintiff claims police prolonged the stop “in violation of Rodriguez” to have a drug dog circle the vehicle and then performed a search. Plaintiff claims that Defendants used the information obtained from the search to connect Plaintiff with an alleged burglary in Lincoln. Plaintiff requests $100, 000, 000 in damages for the alleged 4th Amendment violation.
Attached to Plaintiff's handwritten Complaint is a copy of an arrest warrant and the affidavit in support of the warrant filed in the County Court of Lancaster County, Nebraska. (Filing No. 1 at CM/ECF pp.3-10.) The court also takes judicial notice of additional state court records available online to the court. See Stutzka v. McCarville, 420 F.3d 757, 761, n.2 (8th Cir. 2005) (court may take judicial notice of public records). Plaintiff's state court records show that he was arrested and charged with burglary; that he was bound over to the Lancaster County District Court on September 21, 2017; and that the charge was dismissed without prejudice by the prosecutor on January 19, 2018.
In his Complaint, Plaintiff alleges a violation of his Fourth Amendment rights based on a “prolonged” traffic stop. The Fourth Amendment, applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, provides: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause . . . particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” Thus, the Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable seizures by governmental officials. A seizure for a traffic violation may become unlawful if the stop is prolonged beyond the time reasonably required to address the traffic violation that justified the stop. Rodriguez v. U.S., __ U.S. __, 135 S.Ct. 1609, 1614-15 (2015).
Liberally construed, Plaintiff has alleged sufficient factual allegations to state a plausible Fourth Amendment violation. However, Plaintiff has failed to allege that such violation was caused by a person acting under color of state law. First, the Omaha Nebraska Police Department is not a distinct legal entity amenable to suit under § 1983. See Ketchum v. City of West Memphis, Ark., 974 F.2d 81, 82 (8th Cir. 1992) (departments or subdivisions of local government are “not juridical entities suable as such”); Dean v. Barber, 951 F.2d 1210, 1214-15 (11th Cir. 1992) (“[s]heriff's departments and police departments are not usually considered legal entities subject to suit”).

References: § 1983
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1983
 v. 
 v.