Patmon v. Washington County Jail, NE et al

Filing 14

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER that the Plaintiff shall file a second amended complaint by December 30, 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. The clerk of the court is directed to set a pro se case management deadline using the following text: December 30, 2016: check for second amended complaint. 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
ANTHONY LEE PATMON,
Plaintiff,
V.
WASHINGTON COUNTY JAIL,
NE, TAMMY BADER, and CAROL
HANNEMAN,
Defendants.

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

8:16CV390

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter is before the court on initial review of Plaintiff’s Amended
Complaint. (Filing No. 8.) For the reasons that follow, the court finds that Plaintiff has
failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. However, on its own motion,
the court will allow Plaintiff to file a second amended complaint.
I. SUMMARY OF AMENDED COMPLAINT
Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint names Washington County, Nebraska, Carol
Hanneman (“Hanneman”), and Tammy Bader (“Bader”) as Defendants. (Filing No.
8.) Plaintiff alleges that Hanneman was employed by Washington County Jail to
dispense medication, and that Bader was a nurse practitioner employed by Washington
County Jail. Hanneman and Bader are sued in both their official and individual
capacities. Liberally construed, Plaintiff maintains that Defendants were deliberately
indifferent to his medical needs in violation of his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment
rights.
Defendant alleges that he was detained at the Washington County Jail on
October 13, 2015. At that time, he told Hanneman that he needed his heart medication
and insulin to treat his diabetes. Hanneman contacted “Douglas County Clinic” to fax

over Plaintiff’s medication list. Plaintiff claims that once the fax was received,
Hanneman and Bader were aware of Plaintiff’s medication needs, but failed to order
his medication in a timely manner. (Filing No. 8 at CM/ECF p. 2.)
Plaintiff contends that he has congestive heart failure and that he complained
about having chest pains and feeling unwell. Plaintiff wrote a request form regarding
his heart medication, and Hanneman responded on November 16, 2015, stating that she
needed more information. Plaintiff contends that he did not receive his heart
medication until December 7, 2015.
Plaintiff also alleges that Hanneman did not provide him with his prescribed
insulin, and instead provided him with a different kind. Plaintiff claims that the new
insulin caused him to suffer severe itching and discomfort. Plaintiff asserts that Bader
failed to respond to any of Plaintiff’s request for medical care or “come to see what was
going on with the Plaintiff[’s] medications.” (Filing No. 8 at CM/ECF p. 6.)
Plaintiff alleges that Hanneman was only hired to dispense medication, not treat
inmates. Plaintiff contends that Washington County Jail was deliberately indifferent
to his medical needs by allowing Hanneman to address his medical needs. Plaintiff
claims that Washington County “needs to be held accountable for not having trained
medical staff on standby for any serious medical issues.” (Filing No. 8 at CM/ECF p.
6.)
Plaintiff seeks $2,000,000.00 in damages.
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
2

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
Plaintiff alleges Defendants violated his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment
rights because they were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs. To establish a
§ 1983 claim for deliberate indifference, Plaintiff must demonstrate that he suffered
objectively serious medical needs, and that officials actually knew of but deliberately
disregarded those needs. Johnson v. Hamilton, 452 F.3d 967, 972-73 (8th Cir. 2006).
“Deliberate indifference is equivalent to criminal-law recklessness, which is more
blameworthy than negligence, yet less blameworthy than purposefully causing or
knowingly bringing about a substantial risk of serious harm to the inmate.” Schaub v.
VonWald, 638 F.3d 905, 914-15 (8th Cir. 2011) (citation omitted).
3

Plaintiff has failed to state a claim against Washington County. As a
municipality, Washington County 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
Washington County policy or custom caused the allegedly deficient medical care.
Plaintiff alleges that Washington County was deliberately indifferent to his medical
needs by allowing Hanneman to provide him medical care. Plaintiff further alleges that
Washington County Jail needs to be held accountable for not having trained medical
staff on site. These conclusory statements are insufficient to allege a municipal policy
or custom creating liability under § 1983.
Plaintiff’s official capacity claims against Hanneman and Bader similarly fail.
A claim against an individual in his official capacity is, in reality, a claim against the
entity that employs the official, in this case, Washington County. See Parrish v.
Luckie, 963 F.2d 201, 203 n.1 (8th Cir. 1992) (“Suits against persons in their official
capacity are just another method of filing suit against the entity. A plaintiff seeking
damages in an official-capacity suit is seeking a judgment against the entity.”) (internal
citations omitted)). Because Plaintiff has failed to sufficiently allege that a Washington
County policy or custom caused his injury, Plaintiff’s official capacity claims against
Hanneman and Bader fail.
Likewise, Plaintiff has failed to state a claim against Hanneman in her individual
capacity. Plaintiff’s allegations do not support the inference that Hanneman refused
to treat him, ignored his complaints, or engaged in any similar conduct that would
clearly evince a wanton disregard for any serious medical need. To the contrary,
according to the allegations contained in the Amended Complaint, Hanneman
responded to Plaintiff’s grievances and requests. In short, there is nothing that suggests
that Hanneman acted with a sufficiently culpable state of mind to satisfy the deliberate
indifference standard.
Plaintiff has also failed to state a claim against Bader in her individual capacity.
4

Plaintiff alleges that he did not receive his heart medication in a timely manner and did
not receive the correct type of insulin. Plaintiff alleges that Bader did not act to remedy
the problems with his medication, instead relying on Hanneman. Although Plaintiff
asserts he complained about chest pains, he does not allege that he told Bader and
Hanneman about his symptoms. Moreover, Plaintiff did ultimately receive his
medication. At most, Plaintiff’s claims amount to allegations of negligence. It is wellestablished that mere negligence does not support an Eighth Amendment violation. See
Gregoire v. Class, 236 F.3d 413, 418 (8th Cir. 2000).
Out of an abundance of caution, the court will grant Plaintiff leave to file a
second amended complaint that states a claim upon which relief can be granted.
Failure to file a second amended complaint within the time specified by the court will
result in the court dismissing this action without further notice to Plaintiff.
THEREFORE ORDERED that
1.
Plaintiff shall file a second amended complaint by December 30, 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: December 30, 2016: check for second amended complaint.
DATED this 30th day of November, 2016.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Richard G. Kopf
Senior United States District Judge

5