Mack v. Ricketts et al

Filing 27

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - The courts Memorandum and Order (filing no. 23 ) and Judgment (filing no. 24 ) dated February 1, 2019, are vacated. The clerk of the court is directed to reinstate this case on the courts pro se docket. The clerk of the court is directed to amend the case caption to include only the four defendants listed in the Amended Complaint (see filing no. 25 at CM/ECF pp. 23) as Defendants in this action. The clerk shall remove all other Defendants not listed in the Amended Comp laint from the caption. Plaintiff is advised that the next step in his case is for the court to conduct an initial review of Plaintiffs claims in his Amended Complaint to determine whether summary dismissal is appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). The court will conduct this initial review in its normal course of business. Ordered by Senior Judge Richard G. Kopf. (Copy mailed to pro se party) (LKO)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA NATHANIAL GERALD SERRELL MACK, 8:17CV495 Plaintiff, vs. DR. JEFF MELVIN, PH.D. N.D.C.S. Behavioral Health Assistant Administrator for Sex Offender Services and C-Sort (Clinical Sex Offender Review Team) Chair Person (Officially and Individually); DR. STEPHANIE BRUHN, N.D.C.S. Behavioral Health Assistant Administrator for Sex Offender Services and C-Sort Team Chair Person (Officially and Individually); TAMMY JACKSON, LIMHP N.D.C.S. Mental Health practioner Clinical Sex Offender Programs Manager and C-Sort Vice Chair Person (Officially and Individually); PAUL RODRIQIEZ, LIMHP N.D.C.S. Clinical Sex Offender Programs Manager and C-Sort Team Vice Chair Person (Officially and Individually); JANE DOE I, Former Nebraska State Penitentiary Mental Health Practioner II (Officially and Individually); HEATHER JACKSON, Nebraska State Penitentiary Mental Health Practioner II (Officially and Individually); and JERAMY SIMONSEN, Nebraska State Penitentiary Mental Health Practioner II and former Acting Clinical Sex Offender Programs Manager and C-Sort Vice MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Chair Person (Officially and Individually); Defendants. On February 1, 2019, the court entered a Memorandum and Order and Judgment dismissing this action without prejudice due to Plaintiff’s failure to file an amended complaint by the January 24, 2019 deadline. (Filing Nos. 23 & 24.) Shortly thereafter, on February 5, 2019, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint (filing no. 25) and a Motion for Appointment of Counsel (filing no. 26). Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint is dated January 29, 2019, and Plaintiff represents in his motion for counsel that he has “Mental Retardation Disorder and Dexexia.” (Filing No. 26 at CM/ECF p. 3.) Upon consideration, and pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(a) (court may correct mistake in judgment on its own without notice), the court will vacate the previous order and judgment dismissing this matter and order the clerk’s office to reinstate this case. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: 1. The court’s Memorandum and Order (filing no. 23) and Judgment (filing no. 24) dated February 1, 2019, are vacated. 2. The clerk of the court is directed to reinstate this case on the court’s pro se docket. 3. The clerk of the court is directed to amend the case caption to include only the four defendants listed in the Amended Complaint (see filing no. 25 at CM/ECF pp. 2–3) as Defendants in this action. The clerk shall remove all other Defendants not listed in the Amended Complaint from the caption. 2 4. Plaintiff is advised that the next step in his case is for the court to conduct an initial review of Plaintiff’s claims in his Amended Complaint to determine whether summary dismissal is appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). The court will conduct this initial review in its normal course of business. Dated this 6th day of February, 2019. BY THE COURT: s/ Richard G. Kopf Senior United States District Judge 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?