Chae v. Rodriguez et al

Filing 17

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER -For the reasons set forth in this Memorandum and Order and in the court's Memorandum and Order dated September 26, 2013, this matter is dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be gr anted. The clerk's office is directed to place the "28USC1915(g)_STR" flag on this matter. A separate judgment will be entered in accordance with this Memorandum and Order. The pending motions for status, counsel, and summons are d enied as moot. (Filing Nos. 12 MOTION to Appoint Counsel, 14 MOTION for praecipe for summons, and 9 MOTION Inquiry of Status for the Motion for Praecipe for Summons. Ordered by Judge Joseph F. Bataillon. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(MKR)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
BONG H. CHAE,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
PAUL RODRIGUEZ, Clinical
)
Program Manager for CSORT.,
)
STEPHANIE BRUHN, Ph.D.,
)
Behavioral health Assistant
)
Administrator–Sex Offender
)
Services., CAMERON S. WHITE,
)
Ph.D., Behavioral Administrator, and )
MIKE KENNY, Warden at O.C.C.,
)
)
Defendants.
)

8:13CV166

MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER

This matter is before the court on its own motion. On September 26, 2013, the
court conducted an initial review of Plaintiff’s Complaint. (Filing No. 10.) It
dismissed Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment due process claims and his claims for
monetary relief against Defendants in their official capacities. In addition, the court
determined that Plaintiff’s equal protection claims failed to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted. (Id. at CM/ECF pp. 3-9.) On the court’s own motion, the court
gave Plaintiff the opportunity to file an amended complaint. (Id.)
Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint on October 24, 2013. (Filing No. 11.)
Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint merely reasserts the equal protection claims set forth
in his original Complaint. For the reasons discussed in the court’s Memorandum and
Order dated September 26, 2013, these allegations fail to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted.

In Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, Plaintiff also alleges that Defendants
Stephanie Bruhn, Cameron White, and Mike Kenny, through their review of
Plaintiff’s inmate grievances, showed deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s
constitutional rights. However, Plaintiff does not explain how Defendants’ actions
(or lack thereof) violated his constitutional rights. He alleges in his Complaint and
Amended Complaint that Nebraska Department of Correctional Services staff
recommended that he undergo mental health programming prior to his next parole
hearing. Plaintiff alleges that each of the named Defendants have refused to relieve
him of this recommendation. However, as set forth in the court’s Memorandum and
Order dated September 26, 2013, Plaintiff does not have a constitutionally-protected
liberty interest in parole, and Nebraska statutes clearly state that recommended
programming may include “[a]ny . . . program deemed necessary and appropriate by
the [Nebraska Department of Correctional Services].” See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 83-1,
107(1)(a)(v). For these reasons, Plaintiff’s Complaint and Amended Complaint fail
to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:
1.
For the reasons set forth in this Memorandum and Order and in the
court’s Memorandum and Order dated September 26, 2013, this matter is dismissed
without prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
2.
The clerk’s office is directed to place the “28USC1915(g)_STR” flag on
this matter.
3.
A separate judgment will be entered in accordance with this
Memorandum and Order.

2

4.
The pending motions for status, counsel, and summons are denied as
moot. (Filing Nos. 9, 12, and 14.)
DATED this 28th day of October, 2013.
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.

3