Howard v. Mellor et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
TYREECE HOWARD, Agent;
Plaintiff,
vs.
MATTHEW MELLOR, Judge; FOURSIGHT
CAPITAL LLC, NEBRASKA AUTO
RECOVERY, and DILLONS AUTO,
Defendants.
4:25CV3056
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. 8. 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 files his complaint contending, it appears, that he believes that an
attachment of his vehicle violated his personal and legal rights in violation of UCC-1; his
due process rights; basic consumer rights protected by the U.S. Constitution; powers and
duties of the bank; right to choose; right to education; violation of U.S.C. § 3-608; right to
redress; violation of 12 U.S.C. § 1431; malfeasance in office; 18 U.S.C. §§ 242 and 243;
42 U.S.C. § 1986; 15 U.S.C. § 1605 and 1615. Filing No. 1.
Plaintiff contends that:
On September 6, 2024, Foursight in conjunction with Nebraska Auto
Recovery breached the peace by reckless endangerment, trespassing on
private property, attempted kidnapping of the minor principal, breaking and
attempting to enter the principal’s home, violating the principal[‘s]
constitutional rights.
Filing No. 1 at 4. There are no allegations specifically against the remaining defendants.
4:25-cv-03056-JFB-PRSE Doc # 23 Filed: 01/06/26 Page 1 of 3 - Page ID #
<pageID>

2
Plaintiff is a citizen of Nebraska. Defendant Judge Mellor is a resident of Lincoln,
Nebraska, and a District Court Judge in Lincoln. Foursight Capital is a resident of Salt
Lake City, Utah. Nebraska Auto Recovery is a resident of Nebraska. Dillon’s Auto is a
resident of Lincoln, Nebraska.
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 Atl. 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).
4:25-cv-03056-JFB-PRSE Doc # 23 Filed: 01/06/26 Page 2 of 3 - Page ID #
<pageID>

3
III. DISCUSSION
The Court has liberally reviewed the Complaint. The Court finds no way to allow
this Complaint to proceed. Plaintiff alleges almost entirely conclusions. He does not
allege sufficient facts to support these conclusions. As his Complaint is written, it offers
no claim upon which the Court could grant relief. Further, Plaintiff lists no relationship to
the inclusion of Judge Matthew Mellor in this lawsuit. It is likely that Judge Mellor has
judicial immunity, although the Court is not ruling on that issue at this time. Again, even
the conclusory allegations do not include any facts with regard to Dillon’s Auto.
IV. CONCLUSION
For these reasons, the Court will give the Plaintiff 30 days from the date of this
Memorandum and Order to file an Amended Complaint that complies with the issues
stated in the Discussion section herein. Failure to do so will require the Court to
summarily dismiss this case. The Clerk of Court shall set a case management deadline
for 30 days from the date of this Memorandum and Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 6th day of January, 2026.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Joseph F. Bataillon
Senior United States District Judge
4:25-cv-03056-JFB-PRSE Doc # 23 Filed: 01/06/26 Page 3 of 3 - Page ID #
<pageID>