Juarez v. Dakota County Jail Staff et al

Filing 18

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER that this case is dismissed with prejudice. The court will enter 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
JULIO JUAREZ, SR.,
Plaintiff,
v.
DAKOTA COUNTY JAIL STAFF,
DAKOTA COUNTY NURSING
STAFF, and MERCY MEDICAL
CENTER,
Defendants.

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

8:15CV187

MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER

This matter is before the court on review of Plaintiff Julio Juarez’s Amended
Complaint (Filing No. 16). For the reasons explained below, the court will dismiss
this case with prejudice.
Plaintiff Julio Juarez filed his Complaint (Filing No. 1) on May 28, 2015.
Juarez alleged he fell down a flight of stairs while incarcerated at the Dakota County
Jail in Dakota City, Nebraska. He alleged jail staff aggravated his injuries when they
shifted his body around following his fall. He also alleged he was afraid to ask staff
for help in the days following his fall because he believed jail staff were angry with
him.
This court conducted an initial review of Juarez’s Complaint on October 22,
2015, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A. (See Filing No. 13.)
The court determined that, even when liberally construed, Juarez’s Complaint raised
no claims against any defendant. The court provided Juarez 30 days in which to file
an amended complaint.
Juarez filed his Amended Complaint (Filing No. 16) on November 12, 2015.
He named six individuals as the defendants—Director Kerns, Lieutenant Brenda

Kelly, Sergeant Adams, Officer Elizabeth, Nurse Jennifer, and Nurse Marge—but
only referred to Kerns, Kelly, and Adams in the body of his Amended Complaint.
Juarez alleged in his Amended Complaint that Kerns made “threat after threat”
when he learned Juarez had filed a civil suit against the jail. (Filing 16 at CM/ECF
p. 3.) This bare allegation, without more, does not allow the court to draw the
reasonable inference that Kerns is liable for any misconduct. Specifically, Kerns did
not allege a plausible retaliation claim because he did not identify any adverse action
taken against him. See Revels v. Vincenz, 382 F.3d 870, 876 (2004) (“To establish a
First Amendment retaliation claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the plaintiff must show
(1) he engaged in a protected activity, (2) the government official took adverse action
against him that would chill a person of ordinary firmness from continuing in the
activity, and (3) the adverse action was motivated at least in part by the exercise of the
protected activity.”).
In addition, Juarez alleged Kelly and Adams “had no answers” when Juarez
asked them who opened his legal mail outside of his presence. This allegation does
not state a claim of constitutional dimension against Kelly or Adams. (Filing 16 at
CM/ECF p. 3.) For the reasons set forth in this Memorandum and Order and the
Memorandum and Order dated October 22, 2015,
IT IS ORDERED that: This case is dismissed with prejudice. The court will
enter judgment by a separate document.
DATED this 22nd day of February, 2016.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Richard G. Kopf
Senior United States District Judge

2