Swington v. City of Waterloo, Iowa et al
ORDER denying 42 Motion for Default Entry; denying 43 Motion to Appoint Counsel ; denying 44 Motion to Amend/Correct Judgment. Signed by Judge Linda R Reade on 3/3/2017. (NEF and order mailed to Plaintiff) (pac)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA
CEDAR RAPIDS DIVISION
TRIVANSKY TYRIQUE SWINGTON,
THE CITY OF WATERLOO, IOWA,
BLACK HAWK COUNTY JAIL
SHERIFF’S OFFICE, DEPUTY
ANTHONY NAI, DEPUTY JULIE
LEIN, DEPUTY AARON HAAS,
DEPUTY TODD SCHMITT, DEPUTY
B. ROLLINS, DEPUTY WYATT
LANDERS, DEPUTY ZACHARY
HOLBACH and STATE OF IOWA,
This matter is before the court on the plaintiff’s motion for default entry (docket no.
42), motion to appoint counsel (docket no. 43) and motion to amend or alter judgment
(docket no. 44). The clerk’s office filed those motions on March 2, 2017. The plaintiff
misunderstands the law and misstates the facts. Given the record, there is no basis to enter
default against any named defendant, appoint counsel or amend or alter the judgment. The
court relied on objective evidence and entered judgment in favor of the defendants. The
plaintiff is not able to overcome such evidence. See, e.g., Cullor v. Baldwin, 830 F.3d
830, 839 (8th Cir. 2016) (determining that defendant was entitled to qualified immunity
because he was aware of the shortage of dentists and was attempting to alleviate, or at least
mitigate, its consequences); Saylor v. Nebraska, 812 F.3d 637, 643-45 (8th Cir. 2016)
(concluding that defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because they were aware
of plaintiff’s medical needs and took steps to meet those needs); Reid v. Griffin, 808 F.3d
1191, 1192 (8th Cir. 2015) (agreeing that claims against defendants in their individual
capacities were barred by qualified immunity because numerous mental-health
professionals evaluated plaintiff); Mead v. Palmer, 794 F.3d 932, 936-37 (8th Cir. 2015)
(finding that defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because plaintiff failed to
prove defendants were deliberately indifferent to a serious medical need); Triplett v.
Palmer, 592 F. App’x 534, 535 (8th Cir. 2015) (concluding that facts failed to support a
claim of deliberate indifference and defendants were entitled to qualified immunity); Fourte
v. Faulkner Cty., 746 F.3d 384, 389 (8th Cir. 2014) (determining that doctor and nurse
were entitled to qualified immunity); Risdal v. Nixon, 589 F. App’x 801, 803 (8th Cir.
2014) (concluding that defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because the force
used to restrain plaintiff was objectively reasonable, in light of his highly aggressive and
destructive behavior, his relatively minor injuries, and the need to maintain order in the
facility). Accordingly, the plaintiff’s motion for default entry (docket no. 42), motion to
appoint counsel (docket no. 43) and motion to amend or alter judgment (docket no. 44) are
denied. Relief, if any, is only available at the appellate level.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 3rd day of March, 2017.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?