Ebert v. Hargreaves et al

Filing 18

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: Plaintiff's Motion to Reconsider (Filing No. 17 ) is denied. Ordered by Senior Judge Richard G. Kopf. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(TCL )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA ARTHUR EBERT, Plaintiff, v. RICK HARGREAVES, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 4:11CV3139 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter is before the court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider. (Filing No. 17.) In Plaintiff’s Motion, he asks the court to reconsider its February 28, 2012, Order and Judgment. (Filing Nos. 15 and 16.) Specifically, Plaintiff asks the court to reopen this matter to allow him to amend his Complaint to sue Defendants in their individual capacities. (Filing No. 17 at CM/ECF p. 1.) The court dismissed Plaintiff’s Complaint without prejudice because it determined that (1) Plaintiff’s monetary damages claims against Defendants were barred by the Eleventh Amendment, (2) Plaintiff failed to state an Eighth Amendment medical claim upon which relief may be granted, and (3) Plaintiff had failed to plead facts showing he was entitled to relief on a constitutional right to privacy claim. (Filing No. 15 at CM/ECF pp. 4-5.) The court has carefully reviewed Plaintiff’s Motion and its order dismissing Plaintiff’s Complaint. The court finds that allowing Plaintiff to amend his Complaint to sue Defendants in their individual capacities would be futile1 because it is apparent that Plaintiff’s claim of inadequate medical care fails to meet the requirements of an actionable Eighth Amendment violation. In addition, Plaintiff’s claims that a prison doctor spoke about his back pain in front of other inmates does not state a constitutional violation. For the reasons set forth in the court’s February 28, 2012, Memorandum and Order, 1 The court notes that Plaintiff did ask to amend any other part of his Complaint. (See Filing No. 17.) IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: Plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider (Filing No. 17) is denied. DATED this 20 th day of April, 2012. BY THE COURT: Richard G. Kopf Senior United States District Judge *This opinion may contain hyperlinks to other documents or Web sites. The U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska does not endorse, recommend, approve, or guarantee any third parties or the services or products they provide on their Web sites. Likewise, the court has no agreements with any of these third parties or their Web sites. The court accepts no responsibility for the availability or functionality of any hyperlink. Thus, the fact that a hyperlink ceases to work or directs the user to some other site does not affect the opinion of the court. 2

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?