Moore v. Madison County Jail

Filing 21

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - Plaintiff shall have until October 12, 2012, to amend his complaint and clearly state a claim upon which relief may be granted against Madison County, in accordance with this Memorandum and Order. If plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint, plaintiffs claims against Madison County will be dismissed without further notice for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. In the event that plaintiff files an amended complaint, plaintiff shall restate the allegations of the current Complaint (Filing No. 1), and any new allegations, including those contained in his supplements. Failure to consolidate all claims into one document may result in their abandonment. The clerk of the court is directed to set a pro se case management deadline in this case using the following text: Check for amended complaint on October 12, 2012, and dismiss if none filed. Ordered by Senior Judge Lyle E. Strom. (Copy mailed to pro se party) (AOA)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
JAKOTA MOORE,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
MADISON COUNTY JAIL,
)
)
Defendant.
)
______________________________)

8:12CV207

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Plaintiff filed his complaint in this matter on June
13, 2012 (Filing No. 1).

Plaintiff has previously been given

leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Filing No. 10).

The Court

now conducts an initial review of the complaint to determine
whether summary dismissal is appropriate under 28 U.S.C. §§
1915(e) and 1915A.
I.

SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT
Plaintiff filed his complaint against the “Madison

County Jail.”

(Filing No. 1 at CM/ECF p. 1; Filing No. 11.)

Plaintiff is currently confined in the Lincoln Correctional
Center in Lincoln, Nebraska.

(See Docket Sheet.)

Since plaintiff filed his complaint, he has filed
numerous Supplements.

(See Filing Nos. 11, 12, 13, 18, and 20.)

Plaintiff alleges he is unhappy with his medical care, food, and
living conditions at Madison County Jail.
1.)

(See, e.g., Filing No.

Plaintiff asks the Court to transfer him and to hold Madison

County Jail accountable for incarcerating him under the name

Larry Inman, which plaintiff alleges is not his name.1

(Filing

No. 1 at CM/ECF p. 4; Filing No. 20 at CM/ECF p. 3.)
II.

APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS ON INITIAL REVIEW
The Court is required to review prisoner and in forma

pauperis complaints seeking relief against a governmental entity
or an officer or employee of a governmental entity to determine
whether summary dismissal is appropriate.
1915(e) and 1915A.

See 28 U.S.C. §§

The Court must dismiss a complaint or any

portion thereof that states a frivolous or malicious claim, that
fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that
seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such
relief.

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
A pro se plaintiff must set forth enough factual

allegations to “nudge[] their claims across the line from
conceivable to plausible,” or “their complaint must be dismissed”
for failing to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 569-70 (2007); see
also 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.”).

Regardless of

whether a plaintiff is represented or is appearing pro se, the

1

Plaintiff’s request to be transferred from Madison County
Jail is moot because he is now incarcerated at the Lincoln
Correctional Center in Lincoln, Nebraska. (See Docket Sheet.)
-2-

plaintiff’s complaint must allege specific facts sufficient to
state a claim.
Cir. 1985).

See Martin v. Sargent, 780 F.2d 1334, 1337 (8th

However, a pro se plaintiff’s allegations must be

construed liberally.

Burke v. North Dakota Dep’t of Corr. &

Rehab., 294 F.3d 1043, 1043-44 (8th Cir. 2002) (citations
omitted).
III. DISCUSSION OF CLAIMS
Plaintiff alleges that Madison County Jail violated his
constitutional rights (Filing No. 1 at CM/ECF p. 1; Filing No. 11
at CM/ECF p. 1).

The Court liberally construes claims against

the Madison County Jail as claims against Madison County,
Nebraska.

As a municipal defendant, Madison County may only be

liable under section 1983 if its official “policy” or “custom”
caused a violation of the plaintiff’s constitutional rights.
Doe By & Through Doe v. Washington Cnty., 150 F.3d 920, 922 (8th
Cir. 1998) (citing Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658,
694 (1978)).

An “official policy” involves a deliberate choice

to follow a course of action made from among various alternatives
by an official who has the final authority to establish
governmental policy.

Jane Doe A By & Through Jane Doe B v.

Special Sch. Dist. of St. Louis Cnty., 901 F.2d 642, 645 (8th
Cir.1990) (citing Pembaur v. City of Cincinnati, 475 U.S. 469,
483 (1986)).

To establish the existence of a governmental

custom, a plaintiff must prove:
-3-

1)

The existence of a continuing, widespread,
persistent pattern of unconstitutional
misconduct by the governmental entity’s
employees;

2)

Deliberate indifference to or tacit
authorization of such conduct by the
governmental entity’s policymaking officials
after notice to the officials of that
misconduct; and

3)

That plaintiff was injured by acts pursuant
to the governmental entity’s custom, i.e.,
that the custom was the moving force behind
the constitutional violation.

Jane Doe, 901 F.2d at 646.
Here, plaintiff does not allege that there is a
continuing, widespread, persistent pattern of unconstitutional
misconduct by Madison County’s employees, or that Madison
County’s policymaking officials were deliberately indifferent to
or tacitly authorized any unconstitutional conduct.

In addition,

plaintiff does not allege that an unconstitutional custom was the
moving force behind his injures.

Accordingly, plaintiff has

failed to allege sufficient facts to “nudge” his claims against
Madison County across the line from conceivable to plausible
under the Jane Doe standard.
However, on its own motion, the Court will grant
plaintiff 30 days in which to amend his complaint to sufficiently
allege a claim against Madison County in accordance with the Jane
Doe standard.

Any amended complaint shall restate the

allegations of plaintiff’s prior complaint (Filing No. 1), and

-4-

any new allegations, including those in his supplements.

Failure

to consolidate all claims into one document will result in the
abandonment of claims.

If plaintiff fails to file an amended

complaint in accordance with this Memorandum and Order,
plaintiff’s claims against Madison County will be dismissed
without prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted.
IT IS ORDERED:
1.

Plaintiff shall have until October 12, 2012, to

amend his complaint and clearly state a claim upon which relief
may be granted against Madison County, in accordance with this
Memorandum and Order.

If plaintiff fails to file an amended

complaint, plaintiff’s claims against Madison County will be
dismissed without further notice for failure to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted.
2.

In the event that plaintiff files an amended

complaint, plaintiff shall restate the allegations of the current
Complaint (Filing No. 1), and any new allegations, including
those contained in his supplements.

Failure to consolidate all

claims into one document may result in their abandonment.
3.

The clerk of the court is directed to set a pro se case

management deadline in this case using the following text: Check
for amended complaint on October 12, 2012, and dismiss if none
filed.

-5-

4.

Plaintiff shall keep the Court informed of his

current address at all times while this case is pending.

Failure

to do so may result in dismissal without further notice.
DATED this 11th day of September, 2012.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Lyle E. Strom
____________________________
LYLE E. STROM, Senior Judge
United States District Court

*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.
-6-