Butler et al v. Lancaster County Dept of Corrections et al

Filing 67

MEMORANDUM OPINION - For the reasons set forth above and in the court's order dated March 13, 2015, this matter will be dismissed without prejudice, and both pending motions (Filing Nos. 44 and 65 ) will be denied as moot. A separate judgment will be entered in accordance with this memorandum opinion. Ordered by Senior Judge Lyle E. Strom. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(TCL )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
SERGIO BUTLER,
Plaintiff,
v.
LANCASTER COUNTY DEPT OF
CORRECTIONS and LANCASTER
COUNTY,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

8:14CV306

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the Court on pre-service
screening of Surgio Butler’s Amended Complaint (Filing No. 66).
On March 13, 2015, the Court ordered Butler to file an amended
complaint “that states a plausible claim for relief against
Lancaster County, Nebraska, names any other proper defendants,
and sets forth only his legal rights and interests.”
60 at CM/ECF pp. 6-7.)

(Filing No.

Butler was advised that his claims were

to be presented in one document (i.e., the amended complaint),
and not in numerous briefs, motions, and correspondences.

(See

Filing No. 60 at CM/ECF p. 7.)
Butler filed his Amended Complaint on April 9, 2015.
He did not name any additional defendants in his Amended
Complaint.

Therefore, the Court considers as defendants only the

parties named in the Complaint:

Lancaster County, Nebraska, and

the Lancaster County Department of Corrections.

Butler alleged in his Amended Complaint that: (1) jail
staff have not tested him for communicable diseases; (2) jail
staff denied him a copy of his medical history; (3) he constantly
smells what he believes to be methane gas; (4) jail staff house
him with “people who stand [a]ccused of [h]igh [p]rofile murder
cases;” and (5) a prison guard refused to allow Butler’s infant
daughter to drink her bottle during a “video visit” at the jail.
(See Filing No. 66.)
Butler’s Amended Complaint does not state a claim upon
which relief may be granted against Lancaster County.

A

municipality can be liable under § 1983 only if a municipal
policy or custom caused a plaintiff to be deprived of a federal
right or if the municipality failed to adequately train its
employees.

Snider v. City of Cape Girardeau, 752 F.3d 1149, 1160

(8th Cir. 2014) (citing City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378,
385 (1989); Monell v. N.Y. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658,
694 (1978)).

Butler made no such allegations in this case

despite having been advised in the Court’s previous order that a
municipality may not be held vicariously liable for the actions
of its agents.

(See Filing No. 60 at CM/ECF pp. 4-5.)

For the reasons set forth above and in the court’s
order dated March 13, 2015, this matter will be dismissed without
prejudice, and both pending motions (Filing Nos. 44 and 65) will
-2-

be denied as moot.

A separate judgment will be entered in

accordance with this memorandum opinion.
DATED this 8th day of May, 2015.
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-