Reaves v. Robitaille et al

Filing 19

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - This matter is dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. All pending Motions are denied. A separate judgment will be entered in accordance with this Memorandum and Order. Ordered by Judge Joseph F. Bataillon. (GJG)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
DANNY D. REAVES,
Plaintiff,
v.
JONATHAN ROBITAILLE, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

8:13CV141

MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER

This matter is before the court on its own motion. On September 24, 2013, the court
conducted an initial review of Plaintiff Danny D. Reaves’ Complaint, concluding that his
allegations did not state a claim upon which relief could be granted against Defendant Laurie
Burgess, and dismissing Plaintiff’s claims against her with prejudice. (Filing No. 12 at
CM/ECF pp. 5-6.) The court further concluded that the Complaint did not state a claim upon
which relief could be granted against the remaining defendants, but provided Plaintiff with
the opportunity to file an amended complaint. (Id. at CM/ECF pp. 4-5.)
On November 27, 2013, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint. (Filing No. 18.) As
with his original Complaint, Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint fails to allege sufficient facts
to state a claim upon which relief may be granted against Defendants Jonathon Robitaille
(“Robitaille”), Matt Chandler (“Chandler”), Francis Gallo (“Gallo”), and “Unknown Law
Enforcement Officers.” As the court previously explained in its September 24, 2013,
Memorandum and Order, Plaintiff’s claim that Defendants acted with “deliberate falsehood
an[d] reckless disregard for the truth” in obtaining a warrant to arrest him is implausible.
(Filing No. 12 at CM/ECF p. 5.)
In addition, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Chandler and Robitaille arrested him “for
investigative purposes” to question him about “other uncharged and unsolved crimes.”
(Filing No. 18 at CM/ECF p. 12.) Plaintiff states that Defendants arrested him on May 7,
2009, and that Robitaille specifically stated: “I’m not allowed to talk to you about the
tampering with evidence charges because your [sic] represented by counsel, but I want to talk
to you about the robberies that you’ve been running around here doing.” (Filing No. 18 at
CM/ECF p. 8.) To the extent Plaintiff is alleging that he is entitled to damages because his
Miranda rights were violated, his claim lacks merit. See Warren v. City of Lincoln, 864 F.2d

1436, 1442 (8th Cir. 1989) (en banc); accord Brock v. Logan County Sheriff's Dep’t, 3 F.3d
1215, 1217 (8th Cir. 1993) (per curiam) (“The remedy for the alleged Miranda violation is
the exclusion from evidence of any compelled self-incrimination, not a civil rights action.”);
see also McNeil v. Wisconsin, 501 U.S. 171, 181 (1991) (concluding, where a pretrial
detainee has never expressed any unwillingness to be questioned, and where police officers
suspect the pretrial detainee had involvement in other crimes, that the police officers’ ability
to obtain “uncoerced confessions is not an evil but an unmitigated good”); U.S. v. Harrison,
213 F.3d 1206, 1211 (9th Cir. 2000) (concluding “a suspect may not retain counsel before
an indictment to ‘preempt’ interrogation concerning any crime”) (emphasis in original).
For these reasons, and for the reasons set forth in the court’s September 24, 2013,
Memorandum and Order, Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief could be
granted, and this matter is dismissed.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:
1.
This matter is dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted.
2.

All pending Motions are denied.

3.

A separate judgment will be entered in accordance with this Memorandum and

Order.
DATED this 15th day of April, 2014.
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.

2