# Brown v. Kurz

> District Court, D. Nebraska · September 13, 2022

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10264035

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, D. Nebraska
- **Decided:** September 13, 2022
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10264035

## Opinion text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

HUNTER DAVID BROWN,

Plaintiff, 8:22CV278

vs.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
LIZ KURZ,

Defendant.

Plaintiff Hunter David Brown (“Brown”) filed his Complaint on August 3,
2022. Filing No. 1. Brown has been given leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Filing No.
5. The Court now conducts an initial review of Brown’s pro se Complaint to determine
whether summary dismissal is appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).
I. SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT
The subject matter of the case is the alleged unconstitutional actions taken by
Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services caseworker Liz Kurz,1 Filing No. 1,
which is duplicative with Case No. 8:22CV249, filed by Brown and his wife Casey Colleen
Cox (“Cox”) on July 11, 2022. Compare Filing No. 1 with Case No. 8:22CV249, Filing No.
1. Specifically, both cases involve allegations by Brown that on March 30, 2022, Brown’s

1 It is unclear from the Complaint if Plaintiff sues Defendant in her individual or official capacity.
See Filing No. 1.
children were removed from the family home and taken into state custody and that Kurz
will not tell him the “real reason” for their removal. Id. at CM/ECF p. 4.
The Complaint filed in this case does not contain any additional allegations of
material fact.2 The relief requested by Brown, however, differs from Case No. 8:22CV249
in that here he alleges federal question jurisdiction for what he contends was a “violation

of due process I was forced into making a plea deal I didn’t want,” and seeks higher
money damages of $500,000 for emotional distress manifesting in PTSD, depression,
and a heart attack. Id. at CM/ECF p. 3–4.
II. ANALYSIS
In a separate Memorandum and Order filed August 31, 2022, the Court determined
that the Complaint filed in Case No. 8:22CV249 fails to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted, but on its own motion gave Brown and Cox 30 days to file an Amended
Complaint. See Case No. 8:22CV249, Filing No. 9. Thus, Case No. 8:22CV249 remains
pending, and Brown has been given the opportunity to replead. Therefore, Brown will not

be prejudiced in any manner by the dismissal of the present action as he is able to amend
the Complaint in Case No. 8:22CV249 to incorporate the claims alleged and relief sought
here.
III. CONCLUSION

This case will be dismissed without prejudice, as wholly duplicative of Case No.
8:22CV249.

2 “District courts are accorded ‘a great deal of latitude and discretion’ in determining whether one
action is duplicative of another, but generally, a suit is duplicative if the ‘claims, parties, and available relief
do not significantly differ between the two actions.’” Serlin v. Arthur Andersen & Co., 3 F.3d 221, 223 (7th
Cir. 1993) (citation omitted).
IT |S THEREFORE ORDERED:
1. This action is dismissed without prejudice.
2. Judgment shall be entered by separate document.

Dated this 13th day of September, 2022.
BY THE COURT:
ss F. Bataillon
Senior United States District Judge

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10264035. Public record. Not legal advice.