Purdy v. Douglas County Corrections Center et al

Filing 15

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint by June 11, 2016, that states a claim upon which relief may be granted. Failure to file an amended complaint within the time specified by the court will result in the court dismissin g this case without further notice to Plaintiff. The clerk of the court is directed to set a pro se case management deadline using the following text: June 11, 2016: check for amended complaint. Plaintiff's "Motion for Medical Care Treatment" (Filing No. 8 ) is denied without prejudice to reassertion. Ordered by Senior Judge Richard G. Kopf. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(GJG)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
ANTHONY P. PURDY,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
V.
)
)
DOUGLAS COUNTY
)
CORRECTIONS CENTER,
)
DOUGLAS COUNTY, CITY OF
)
OMAHA, CCS MEDICAL
)
PROVIDER, MEDICAL
)
DEPARTMENT, MEDICAL STAFF, )
DONUA RICKIE, PSYCHIATRIST )
FOR CCS, CAPTAIN EARLY, and
)
MARK FAXHALL,
)
)
Defendants.

8:15CV363

MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER

This matter is before the court on initial review of Plaintiff Anthony Purdy’s
Complaint. (Filing No. 1.) For the reasons that follow, the court finds Plaintiff’s
pleadings do not state any claims on which relief may be granted. However, the court
will allow Plaintiff to file an amended complaint.
I. SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT
Plaintiff’s Complaint is rambling, incoherent, and nearly eligible. As best the
court can tell, Plaintiff asserts that he was unlawfully denied proper medical treatment.
Plaintiff also suggests that he is disabled and that the alleged denial of medical
treatment violated the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Plaintiff names the following as Defendants, Douglas County Corrections
Center; Douglas County; City of Omaha; CCS Medical Provider; Medical

Department; Medical Staff; Donua Rickie; Psychiatrist for CCS; Captain Early; and
Mark Faxhall.
II. STANDARDS ON INITIAL REVIEW
The court is required to review prisoner and in forma pauperis complaints
seeking relief against a governmental entity or an officer or employee of a
governmental entity to determine whether summary dismissal is appropriate. See 28
U.S.C. §§ 1915(e) and 1915A. The court must dismiss a complaint or any portion of
it that states a frivolous or malicious claim, that fails to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted, or that seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from
such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).
Pro se plaintiffs must set forth enough factual allegations to “nudge[] their
claims across the line from conceivable to plausible,” or “their complaint must be
dismissed.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 569-70 (2007); see also
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (“A claim has facial plausibility when the
plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference
that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”).
“The essential function of a complaint under the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure is to give the opposing party ‘fair notice of the nature and basis or grounds
for a claim, and a general indication of the type of litigation involved.’” Topchian v.
JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 760 F.3d 843, 848 (8th Cir. 2014) (quoting Hopkins v.
Saunders, 199 F.3d 968, 973 (8th Cir. 1999)). However, “[a] pro se complaint must
be liberally construed, and pro se litigants are held to a lesser pleading standard than
other parties.” Topchian, 760 F.3d at 849 (internal quotation marks and citations
omitted).
III. DISCUSSION
Liberally construed, Plaintiff claims he has been denied adequate medical care
2

in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. However, it is entirely
unclear how Plaintiff’s care has allegedly been deficient. Also, it is unclear who
employs the people named in the caption. In any event, Plaintiff’s conclusory
statements, even when given liberal construction, fail to state a claim.
Plaintiff has failed to state a claim against Douglas County and the City of
Omaha because, as municipalities, Douglas County and the City of Omaha can only
be liable under § 1983 if a municipal policy or custom caused his injury. See Monell
v. New York Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 694 (1978). Plaintiff has
failed to plausibly suggest that an official Douglas County or City of Omaha policy
or custom caused the allegedly deficient medical care.
Also, Plaintiff has failed to specify whether his claims against the officials
named as defendants are asserted against them in their official or individual capacities.
Because Plaintiff’s Complaint does not specify whether he is suing them in their
official or individual capacities, this court presumes they are sued in their official
capacities only. See Johnson v. Outboard Marine Corp., 172 F.3d 531, 535 (8th Cir.
1999) (“This court has held that, in order to sue a public official in his or her
individual capacity, a plaintiff must expressly and unambiguously state so in the
pleadings, otherwise, it will be assumed that the defendant is sued only in his or her
official capacity.”). A claim against an individual in his official capacity is, in reality,
a claim against the entity that employs the official, in this case, Douglas County or the
City of Omaha. See Parrish v. Luckie, 963 F.2d 201, 203 n.1 (8th Cir. 1992). As
stated previously, these entities can only be liable under § 1983 if a municipal policy
or custom caused Plaintiff’s injury. Plaintiff has failed to make such allegations.
It is also unclear which officials were actually involved with Plaintiff’s medical
care. Plaintiff has not indicated how any of the individual defendants were personally
involved with his medical treatment. Rather, Defendants’ names only appear in the
caption of the Complaint. A complaint that only lists a defendant’s name in the
caption without alleging that the defendant was personally involved in the alleged
misconduct fails to state a claim against that defendant. See Krych v. Hvass, 83 F.
App’x 854, 855 (8th Cir. 2003). Therefore, Plaintiff has failed to state a claim against
3

the officials named as defendants.
Moreover, to the extent Plaintiff is attempting to do so, he has not stated a
viable claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). Plaintiff has not
alleged that he was discriminated against based upon a disability. Moreover, claims
under the ADA cannot be based on medical treatment decisions. See Burger v.
Bloomberg, 418 F.3d 882, 883 (8th Cir. 2005). Therefore, Plaintiff’s ADA claim
fails.
On the court’s own motion, the court will provide Plaintiff with an opportunity
to file an amended complaint that states a claim upon which relief may be granted.
Failure to file an amended complaint within the time specified by the court will result
in the court dismissing this case without further notice to Plaintiff.
On January 28, 2016, Plaintiff filed a “Motion for Medical Care Treatment.”
(Filing No. 8.) This motion will be denied without prejudice to reassertion because
the document is nearly eligible and the court is unable to ascertain the relief sought.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
1.
Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint by June 11, 2016, that states a
claim upon which relief may be granted . Failure to file an amended complaint within
the time specified by the court will result in the court dismissing this case without
further notice to Plaintiff.
2.
The clerk of the court is directed to set a pro se case management
deadline using the following text: June 11, 2016: check for amended complaint.
3.
Plaintiff’s “Motion for Medical Care Treatment” (Filing No. 8) is denied
without prejudice to reassertion.

4

Dated this 11th day of May, 2016.
BY THE COURT:
Richard G. Kopf
Senior United States District Judge

5