Source: http://ne.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20171208_0004734.DNE.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 15:27:00+00:00

Document:
ANGIE WILLIAMS, Nebr. Family Cooperitive; Defendant.
Plaintiff Charles Swift filed his Complaint (Filing No. 1) on September 11, 2017, and has been granted 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)(2).
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Angie Williams (“Williams”) of Nebraska Family Cooperative (“NFC”) kidnapped Plaintiff's infant son in March 2017.Plaintiff further alleges that illegal testing for drugs was performed on the child with no illegal drugs found. Plaintiff also claims that he was tested for illegal drugs with negative results, but does not claim that such testing was illegal. Plaintiff seeks damages for the kidnapping in the amount of $100 million.
Liberally construed, Plaintiff here seeks to allege federal constitutional claims. To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege a violation of rights protected by the United States Constitution or created by federal statute and also must show that the alleged deprivation was caused by conduct of a person acting under color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988); Buckley v. Barlow, 997 F.2d 494, 495 (8th Cir. 1993).
Plaintiff alleges his child was taken by Williams without “jurisdiction, power of authority, [or] authorization by any court.” (Filing No. 1 at CM/ECF p.1.) Plaintiff fails to allege that Williams was acting under color of state law. Even assuming that William's conduct was “fairly attributable to the state, ” so that she can be sued as a state actor under § 1983, see Filarsky v. Delia, 132 S.Ct. 1657, 1661 (2012), the facts alleged are not sufficient to state a claim for relief.
“The Due Process Clause provides that no State shall . . . deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. . . . Parties whose rights are to be affected are entitled to be heard; and in order that they may enjoy that right they must first be notified.” Lind v. Midland Funding, L.L.C., 688 F.3d 402, 405- 06 (8th Cir. 2012). “Parents have a recognized liberty interest in the care, custody, and management of their children.” Whisman Through Whisman v. Rinehart, 119 F.3d 1303, 1309 (8th Cir. 1997). However, “[t]hat liberty interest ‘is limited by the compelling governmental interest in the protection of minor children, particularly in circumstances where the protection is considered necessary as against the parents themselves.'” Id. (quoting Myers v. Morris, 810 F.2d 1437, 1462 (8th Cir. 1987)). “In cases in which continued parental custody poses an imminent threat to the child's health or welfare, emergency removal of children without a court order is constitutionally permitted.” K.D. v. Cty. of Crow Wing, 434 F.3d 1051, 1056 (8th Cir. 2006). However, when a defendant's action is proportional to his or her reasonable belief that a minor child faces the threat of immediate harm, no constitutional violation occurs. Id.

References: § 1915
 § 1983
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1983
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.