Clayborne v. Lancaster County et al

Filing 20

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER that this case is dismissed with prejudice. The court willenter judgment by a separate document. Ordered by Senior Judge Richard G. Kopf. (Copy mailed to pro se party) (LAC)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
ROBERT EARL CLAYBORNE JR.,
Plaintiff,
v.
LANCASTER COUNTY, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

8:15CV144

MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER

This matter is before the court on initial review of Plaintiff Robert Earl
Clayborne’s Amended Complaint (Filing No. 17). For the reasons explained below,
the court will dismiss this case with prejudice.
The court conducted an initial review of Clayborne’s Complaint (Filing No. 1)
on November 6, 2015. The court summarized the factual allegations underlying this
federal action in its initial review of Clayborne’s Complaint. (See Filing No. 16 at
CM/ECF pp. 1-4.)
Clayborne filed the Amended Complaint at issue here on November 19, 2015.
He named Judge Stephanie Stacy, Lori Pasold, and Christopher Eickholt as the
defendants. Judge Stephanie Stacy presided over Clayborne’s 2012 criminal
proceedings, Pasold prosecuted him, and Eickholt served as his public defender. (See
Filing No. 16 at CM/ECF pp. 1-4.)
Clayborne alleged in his Amended Complaint that Stacy, Pasold, and Eickholt
allowed him to plead guilty to criminal charges even though they were aware he
suffered from a mental illness. He argues their actions constituted deliberate
indifference to serious medical needs, and was a violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act (“ADA”). (See generally Filing No. 17.) Clayborne seeks money
damages in this case, and specified his constitutional claims are lodged against the
defendants in their individual capacities.

The court will dismiss Clayborne’s claims against Judge Stacy and Pasold in
their individual capacities because, for the reasons already discussed in the court’s
Memorandum and Order dated November 6, 2015, Clayborne’s claims against them
are barred under the doctrines of judicial immunity and prosecutorial immunity. (See
Filing No. 16 at CM/ECF pp. 7-8.)
In addition, the court will dismiss Clayborne’s claims against Eickholt brought
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. For the reasons discussed in the court’s November 6
Memorandum and Order, Eickholt is not a state actor.
The court will also dismiss Clayborne’s ADA claims. Congress enacted the
ADA with the purpose of “provid[ing] a clear and comprehensive national mandate
for the elimination of discrimination against individuals with disabilities.” 42 U.S.C.
§ 12101(b)(1) (emphasis added). Clayborne did not identify any provision of the
ADA that would have required the judge, prosecutor, or his public defender to halt his
criminal proceedings because they believed he suffered from a mental illness.
Moreover, he presented no allegations to suggest any of the defendants subjected him
to unlawful disability-based discrimination.
IT IS ORDERED that: This case is dismissed with prejudice. The court will
enter judgment by a separate document.
DATED this 23rd day of February, 2016.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Richard G. Kopf
Senior United States District Judge

2