United States District Court, D. Nebraska
JOSHUA M. NICKMAN, Plaintiff,
JUAN M. ZARRAGA, official capacity, SHELBY L. RAWLINGS, official capacity, ANDREW L. MCLEAN, official capacity, COLTON J. GUERRERO, official capacity, MICHAEL TUBBS, official capacity, JESUS J. RAMIREZ, official capacity, JAIME LYN CRAFT, official capacity, JESSICA M. STROUP, official capacity, SCOTT B. ANDREALA, official capacity, ERIC JON LITTLE, official capacity, JONATHAN R. TRIPP, official capacity, AARON CRAY, official capacity, TODD BAHENSKY, official capacity, LACY, official capacity, HALL COUNTY CORRECTIONS, official capacity, and J. JONES, official capacity, Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Richard G. Kopf Senior United States District Judge.
court previously conducted an initial review of
Plaintiff's Complaint to determine whether summary
dismissal was appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
Upon review, the court concluded that Plaintiff had failed to
state a claim. (Filing No. 21.) However, Plaintiff
was given leave to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff has
submitted an Amended Complaint and the court will now review
it to determine whether Plaintiff has asserted any viable
SUMMARY OF AMENDED COMPLAINT
who is currently incarcerated at the Lincoln Diagnostic
Center, alleges he was assaulted by jail staff while
incarcerated at Hall County Corrections. (Filing No.
1.) Plaintiff further contends that he did not
receive proper medical treatment for the injuries he
sustained in the assault.
has named Hall County Corrections, and multiple correctional
officers and officials at Hall County Corrections as
defendants. The officers are sued in their individual
Plaintiff's Claim Against Hall County
municipality, Hall 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 Hall County policy or
custom caused a violation of his constitutional rights.
Therefore, Plaintiff's claims against Hall County will be
Plaintiff's Excessive Force Claim
Eighth Amendment forbids the wanton and unnecessary
infliction of pain upon prisoners. In an Eighth Amendment
excessive force case, “the core judicial inquiry is
whether force was applied in a good-faith effort to maintain
or restore discipline, or maliciously and sadistically to
cause harm.” Santiago v. Blair, 707 F.3d 984,
990 (8th Cir. 2013) (internal quotation omitted).
“Whether the force used was reasonable is judged from
the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene and in
light of the particular circumstances.” Story v.
Norwood, 659 F.3d 680, 686 (8thCir. 2011) (internal
alleges that Defendants McLean, Zarraga, and Gray took him
into a room to question him about a grievance he was planning
to file. Plaintiff claims he was seated in a chair at a table
and Defendants McLean, Zarraga, and Gray “came
at” him and body slammed him into the corner of the
room. Then, Defendants Rawlings, Guerrero, Tubbs, Ramirez,
Craft, Stroup, Andreala, Little and Trip came into the room
and piled on top of Plaintiff. Plaintiff contends that these
Defendants pinned him down and repeatedly punched and choked
court finds that Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged an Eighth
Amendment excessive force claim against Defendants McLean,
Zarraga, Gray, Rawlings, Guerrero, Tubbs, Ramirez, Craft,
Stroup, Andreala, Little and Trip. Liberally construed,
Plaintiff alleges he was attacked because he planned to file
a grievance. Plaintiff maintains that he was in an interview
room with three officers and seated in a chair at a table
when the assault began. These allegations are sufficient to
suggest that the force used against Plaintiff was
unreasonable. Therefore, the court will allow Plaintiff's
excessive force claims to proceed to service of process
against these Defendants.
the court will dismiss Plaintiff's claims against Jones
and Bahensky. The Amended Complaint does not identify the
actions taken by these defendants. “Individual
liability under § 1983 must be based on personal
involvement in the alleged constitutional violation.”
Gallagher v. Shelton, 587 F.3d 1063, 1069 (10th Cir.
2009). A complaint that only lists a defendant's name
without alleging that the defendant was personally involved
in the alleged misconduct fails to state a claim against that
defendant. Krych v. Hvass, 83 F. App'x 854, 855
(8th Cir. 2003).