Reyna v. Hammond et al

Filing 17

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER that this matter is dismissed without prejudice because the Letter, liberallyconstrued as an Amended Complaint 16 fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. A separate judgment will be entered in accordance with this Memorandum and Order and the court's April 3, 2012, Memorandum and Order. The Clerk of the court is directed to place the "28USC1915(g)_STR" flag on this matter. Ordered by Senior Judge Warren K. Urbom. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(ADB)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
LEONEL M. REYNA,
Plaintiff,
v.
KATHY HAMMOND, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

8:11CV414

MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER

This matter is before the court on its own motion. On April 3, 2012, the court
conducted an initial review of Plaintiff’s Complaint and found that Plaintiff failed to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted as to all claims asserted. (Filing No.
15.) In particular, the court determined that:
Reyna does not allege that there is a continuing, widespread, persistent
pattern of unconstitutional misconduct by Cherry County or its
employees, or that Cherry County’s policymaking officials were
deliberately indifferent to or tacitly authorized any unconstitutional
conduct relating to Reyna’s medical conditions. In addition, Reyna does
not allege that an unconstitutional custom was the moving force behind
his injuries. Accordingly, Reyna has failed to allege sufficient facts to
“nudge” his claims against Cherry County across the line from
conceivable to plausible under the Jane Doe standard.
(Id. at CM/ECF p. 5.) In light of these pleading deficiencies, the court granted
Plaintiff an opportunity to amend.
In response, Plaintiff filed a Letter on April 24, 2012, which the court liberally
construes as an Amended Complaint. (Filing No. 16.) In his Letter, Plaintiff states
that he has “lots of evidence,” and requests that the court allow him to submit to a “lie
detector” test to prove the truth of his allegations. (Id.) Plaintiff also reiterates some
of the allegations of his original Complaint, but does not assert any additional

allegations. (Id.) Thus, after careful review of the Letter, the court finds that Plaintiff
has failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
129 S. Ct. 1937, 1950 (2009) (“A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff
pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the
defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”); Martin v. Sargent, 780 F.2d 1334,
1337 (8th Cir. 1985) (holding that, regardless of whether a plaintiff is represented or
is appearing pro se, the plaintiff’s complaint must allege specific facts sufficient to
state a claim). For these reasons, and the reasons set forth in the court’s April 3, 2012,
Memorandum and Order, this matter is dismissed without prejudice.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:
1.

This matter is dismissed without prejudice because the Letter, liberally

construed as an Amended Complaint (filing no. 16), fails to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted.
2.

A separate judgment will be entered in accordance with this

Memorandum and Order and the court’s April 3, 2012, Memorandum and Order.
3.
The Clerk of the court is directed to place the “28USC1915(g)_STR” flag
on this matter.
DATED this 11 th day of May, 2012.
BY THE COURT:
Warren K. Urbom

2

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.
3