Williamson v. Douglas County Community Health Center et al

Filing 6

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER that the Complaint 1 is dismissed without prejudice. A separate judgment will be entered in accordance with this Memorandum and Order. The Clerk of the court is directed to send to Plaintiff the Form AO240, Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees and the Form AO241. Ordered by Judge Joseph F. Bataillon. (Copy mailed to pro se party with forms )(ADB)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
MARGARET AVIS WILLIAMSON, )
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
DOUGLAS COUNTY
)
COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTER, )
and RICHARD YOUNG MENTAL )
HOSPITAL,
)
)
Defendants.
)

8:12CV284

MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER

Plaintiff filed her Complaint in this matter on August 9, 2012. (Filing No. 1.)
Plaintiff has previously been given leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (Filing No.
5.) The court now conducts an initial review of the Complaint to determine whether
summary dismissal is appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
I.

SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT

Plaintiff filed her Complaint against the Douglas County Community Health
Center and Richard Young Mental Hospital, which Plaintiff notes is “closed.” (Filing
No. 1 at CM/ECF p. 1.) Condensed and summarized, Plaintiff alleges that, beginning
in August 1999, she was civilly committed due to mental health issues and is “still
considered committed now.” (Id. at CME/CF p. 2.) Plaintiff has been “locked up”
repeatedly for her mental health conditions, resulting in her being “very sick and
poor.” (Id. at CME/CF p. 3.)1 Plaintiff’s family is working with “the system” to keep
her civilly committed and even though Plaintiff believes she hasn’t “done anything”

1

It is unclear whether Plaintiff is currently physically confined in a mental health facility.
Liberally construing the Complaint, it is clear that Plaintiff is still subject to an ongoing civil
commitment order, was repeatedly physically confined in the past, and is subject to physical
confinement in the future. (Filing No. 1.)

or “committed [any] crime,” she remains in state care. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that she
is “suffer[ing] like a slave to [her] family and the system” in part because of her “race
and [her] belief in Jesus Christ.” (Id. at CM/ECF p. 5.) Plaintiff requests that the
court award her unspecified monetary relief and, liberally construed, end her civil
commitment. (Id. at CM/ECF pp. 3-5.)
II.

APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS ON INITIAL REVIEW

The court is required to review in forma pauperis complaints to determine
whether summary dismissal is appropriate. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). 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).
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 plaintiff’s complaint must allege specific facts sufficient
to state a claim. See Martin v. Sargent, 780 F.2d 1334, 1337 (8th Cir. 1985).
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

Claims relating to the validity of an individual’s incarceration may not be
brought in a civil rights case, regardless of the relief sought. As set forth by the
2

Supreme Court in Preiser v. Rodriquez, 411 U.S. 475 (1973), and Heck v. Humphrey,
512 U.S. 477 (1994), if success on the merits of a civil rights claim would necessarily
implicate the validity of a prisoner’s conviction or continued confinement, the civil
rights claim must be preceded by a favorable outcome in a habeas corpus or similar
proceeding in a state or federal forum. Absent such a favorable disposition of the
charges or conviction, a plaintiff may not use 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to cast doubt on the
legality of his conviction or confinement. See Heck, 512 U.S. at 486-87; see also
Duncan v. Walker, 533 U.S. 167, 176 (2001) (stating a state court order of civil
commitment satisfies the federal habeas statute’s “in custody” requirement); Simpson
v. Demorales, No. CV 08-5475-SGL (JTL), 2009 WL 362109, at *2-4 (C.D. Cal. Feb.
10, 2009) (concluding a plaintiff who filed a § 1983 complaint, challenging his
commitment to a mental health facility failed to state a claim upon which relief could
be granted because his claim would imply that his commitment was in some way
invalid).
Here, Plaintiff alleges that her ongoing civil commitment is wrong and that
“there is no legitimate reason to locking [her] up.” (Filing No. 1 at CM/ECF p. 3.)
Plaintiff seeks monetary relief for her ongoing civil mental health commitment and
an end to that order. (Id. at CM/ECF pp. 3-5.) A judgment in Plaintiff’s favor on
these claims would imply that her current civil commitment is in some way invalid.
As set forth above, the court cannot address claims related to the validity of Plaintiff’s
confinement in an action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. However, the court
will dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint without prejudice to reassertion in a habeas corpus
or similar proceeding.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:
1.

Plaintiff’s Complaint (filing no. 1) is dismissed without prejudice.

2.
A separate judgment will be entered in accordance with this
Memorandum and Order.
3

3.
The Clerk of the court is directed to send to Plaintiff the Form AO240,
Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees and the Form AO241.
DATED this 16th day of October, 2012.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Joseph F. Bataillon
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.

4