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 )

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