Bruesch v. Flanagan et al
ORDER: Plaintiff granted leave to file second amended complaint. Second amended complaint due by 9/10/2012. The 13 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 11 Complaint filed by Nicholas Dodge Bruesch is deemed moot. by Magistrate Judge Charles S. Miller, Jr. (BG) Distributed on 8/10/2012 (jt).
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT NORTH DAKOTA
Nicholas Dodge Bruesch,
Case No. 1:12-cv-083
The plaintiff, Nicholas Dodge Bruesch (“Bruesch”), is an inmate at the North Dakota State
Penitentiary (“NDSP”). He initiated the above-entitled action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on July
13, 2012. He alleged in his complaint that he claimed to that he was subjected to excessive force by
defendants, wrongfully stripped of good time as a consequence of a false report filed against him
by defendants, and denied materials he had requested from the NDSP’s law library.
The undersigned conducted an initial review of Bruesch’s complaint as mandated by 28
U.S.C. §1915A. The undersigned found the complaint to be deficient to the extent that it failed to
specify what relief Bruesch was seeking or in what capacity Bruesch was suing the defendants. The
undersigned further observed that, with respect to the alleged denial of access to legal materials, the
complaint was devoid of any indication that Bruesch had suffered prejudice to a nonfrivolous legal
claim and therefore did not adequately state a claim for relief. Sanders v. Sheahan, 198 F.3d 626,
630 (7th Cir. 1999) (prisoner must "allege injury or prejudice" to state a claim of denial of access
to the courts); see Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. at 349-55; Moore v. Plaster, 266 F.3d at 928, 933 (8th
Cir. 2001). Finally, the undersigned noted that claims for restoration of lost good time are not
cognizable under § 1983. Consequently, in the report issued on July 26, 2012, the undersigned made
the following recommendation to the court:
that the complaint be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE unless Bruesch files
an amended complaint within the time period set forth below for objecting to this
Report and Recommendation. If Bruesch does file an amended complaint, then this
Report and Recommendation should be deemed moot and the amended complaint
be subjected to a new § 1915A screening.
Docket No. 13.
The same day the undersigned filed the aforementioned report and recommendation, Bruesch
filed an amended complaint with the court. Therein he elaborated on the basis for his claim for
excessive force, advised the court that he was suing defendants in both their individual and official
capacities, and specified that he was seeking compensatory and punitive damages as well as
On July 31, 2012, the court received a letter from Bruesch. In the letter, Bruesch
acknowledged receipt of the undersigned’s report and recommendation, clarified that he was not
asserting a claim for restoration of lost good time, reasserted that he is being denied “certain legal
materials, and expressed his desire to assert a second claim for excessive use of force.
Bruesch’s amended complaint addresses in part the pleading deficiencies identified by the
undersigned in the Report and Recommendation. The Report and Recommendation shall therefore
be deemed MOOT.
The undersigned construes Bruesch’s letter as a request for leave to file a second amended
complaint. The undersigned GRANTS Bruesch’s request and shall permit him to file a second
amended complaint with the court by September 10, 2012. Bruesch is advised that he will not be
permitted to plead his case piecemeal. He should set forth all of his claims, describe the factual
bases for his claims, and reiterate the relief he is seeking.
The court shall hold the screening of Bruesch’s pleadings in abeyance pending receipt of his
second amended complaint.
Should Bruesch not file an amended complaint with the court by
September 10, 2012, the court shall proceed with the screening of Bruesch’s first amended
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 10th day of August, 2012.
/s/ Charles S. Miller, Jr.
Charles S. Miller, Jr.
United States Magistrate Judge