United States District Court, D. Minnesota
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Bowbeer United States Magistrate Judge
David Richard Kostuch brings this lawsuit against the entire
world.Kostuch did not pay the filing fee for this
matter, but instead applied for in forma pauperis
(“IFP”) status. [Doc. No. 2.] That IFP
application is now before the Court and must be considered
before any other action may be taken in these proceedings.
review of the IFP application, this Court concludes that
Kostuch qualifies financially for IFP status. That said, an
IFP application will be denied, and an action will be
dismissed, when an IFP applicant has filed a complaint that
fails to state a cause of action on which relief may be
granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii);
Atkinson v. Bohn, 91 F.3d 1127, 1128 (8th Cir. 1996)
(per curiam); Carter v. Schafer, 273 Fed. App'x
581, 582 (8th Cir. 2008) (per curiam) (“[C]ontrary to
plaintiffs' arguments on appeal, the provisions of 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e) apply to all persons proceeding IFP and
are not limited to prisoner suits, and the provisions allow
dismissal without service.”). In reviewing whether a
complaint states a claim on which relief may be granted, this
Court must accept as true all of the factual allegations in
the complaint and draw all reasonable inferences in the
plaintiff's favor. Aten v. Scottsdale Ins. Co.,
511 F.3d 818, 820 (8th Cir. 2008). Although the factual
allegations in the complaint need not be detailed, they must
be sufficient to “raise a right to relief above the
speculative level . . . .” Bell Atl. Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). The complaint must
“state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face.” Id. at 570. In assessing the
sufficiency of the complaint, the court may disregard legal
conclusions that are couched as factual allegations. See
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009). Pro se
complaints are to be construed liberally, but they still must
allege sufficient facts to support the claims advanced.
See Stone v. Harry, 364 F.3d 912, 914 (8th Cir.
complaint is nearly impossible to follow. Aspects of the
pleading appear to challenge the practices of several
financial institutions; other aspects appear to challenge the
validity of an arrest; others still appear discontented with
various instances of disrespect. Other allegations defy
explanation. None of the claims is spelled out in much (or
any) detail, nor is any particular claim attributed to any
particular actor; instead, the complaint meanders from one
grievance to the next.
8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires only
“a short and plain statement of the claim showing that
the pleader is entitled to relief.” Still, the claims
raised by a plaintiff must at least be sufficiently pleaded
to put the defendants on notice of the claims being brought
against them. In this case, no potential defendant could be
said to be put fairly on notice of the specific claims that
might be brought against them through the inchoate complaint.
And, of course, no proper defendant has been named to this
action, with “The World” not being a legal entity
amenable to suit.
has not pleaded a viable claim for relief. Accordingly, it is
recommended that this matter be dismissed without prejudice.
on the foregoing, and on all of the files, records, and
proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED
1. This matter be DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
2. The application to proceed in forma pauperis of
Plaintiff David Richard Kostuch [Doc. No. 2] be
DENIED AS MOOT.
Report and Recommendation is not an order or judgment of the
District Court and is therefore not appealable directly to
the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. Under Local Rule
72.2(b)(1), “a party may file and serve specific
written objections to a magistrate judge's proposed
finding and recommendations within 14 days after being served
a copy” of the Report and Recommendation. A party may
respond to those objections within 14 days after being served
a copy of the objections. See Local Rule 72.2(b)(2). All
objections and responses must comply with the word or line
limits set forth in Local Rule 72.2(c).
 A judge ordinarily must recuse herself
when she is a party to the proceeding. See 28 U.S.C. §
455(b)(5)(i). But “there is a maxim of law to the
effect that where all are disqualified, none are
disqualified.” Pilla v. Am. Bar Ass'n, 542
F.2d 56, 59 (8th Cir. 1976) (quotation omitted) (citing Evans
v. Gore, 253 U.S. 245 (1920)). Any person sitting in judgment
of this action must necessarily be an active participant of
The World. See Yovino v. Rizo, ___ S.Ct ___, 2019 WL
886486, at *3 (Feb. 25, 2019) (“[F]ederal judges are
appointed for life, not for ...