Moore v. Madison County Jail

Filing 25

MEMORANDUM OPINION on the court's own motion. A separate order will be entered in accordance with this memorandum opinion. Ordered by Senior Judge Lyle E. Strom. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(MKR)

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

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

8:12CV207

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the Court on its own motion.

On

September 11, 2012, this Court conducted an initial review of
plaintiff’s complaint, finding that it failed to state a claim
against Madison County Jail (“Madison County”) upon which relief
could be granted (Filing No. 21 at CM/ECF p. 6).
In particular, the Court determined plaintiff failed to
allege that there was “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.”

(Id. at CM/ECF p. 4.)

The Court also

found that plaintiff failed to allege that “an unconstitutional
custom was the moving force behind his injures.”

(Id.)

The

Court gave plaintiff until October 12, 2012, to file an amended
complaint to adequately allege a claim against Madison County.
(Id. at CM/ECF p. 6.)

On October 1, 2012, plaintiff filed an amended
complaint (Filing No. 24). However, even liberally construed,
plaintiff’s amended complaint suffers from the same defects as
his original complaint.

Plaintiff alleges that he is still

incarcerated under an incorrect name, and that this constitutes
“persistent unconstitutional conduct.”

(Id. at CM/ECF p. 8.)

He

also alleges that Madison County is deliberately indifferent
because he has proven his correct identity, but is still being
detained under an incorrect name.

(Id.)

These, and plaintiff’s

other allegations, do not nudge[] [his] claims across the line
from conceivable to plausible,” and they “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.”); Lee v.
Chapman, No. 5:07-CV-465 (CAR), 2010 WL 1487233, at *1, 3 (M.D.
Ga. Feb. 5, 2010) (concluding there was no authority indicating
or even suggesting that defendants violated a constitutional or
statutory right by refusing to change a plaintiff’s commitment
information containing an alleged incorrect name).
For these reasons, and for the reasons set forth in the
court’s September 11, 2012, memorandum and order, plaintiff’s
-2-

amended complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted and will be dismissed in its entirety.
Also pending is plaintiff’s motion for copies (Filing
No. 23).

Plaintiff does not have the right to receive copies of

documents without payment, even if the Court granted him leave to
proceed in forma pauperis.

28 U.S.C. § 1915; see also Haymes v.

Smith, 73 F.R.D. 572, 574 (W.D.N.Y. 1976) (“The generally
recognized rule is that a court may not authorize the commitment
of federal funds to underwrite the necessary expenditures of an
indigent civil litigant’s action.”) (citing Tyler v. Lark, 472
F.2d 1077 (8th Cir. 1973), other citations omitted).

If

plaintiff requires copies of court documents, he should contact
the clerk of the court to determine the proper method of
requesting and paying for copies.

A separate order will be

entered in accordance with this memorandum opinion.
DATED this 15th day of October, 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.
-3-