Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Patmon v. Washington County Jail

United States District Court, D. Nebraska

November 30, 2016

ANTHONY LEE PATMON, Plaintiff,
v.
WASHINGTON COUNTY JAIL, NE, TAMMY BADER, and CAROL HANNEMAN, Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          Richard G. Kopf Senior United States District Judge.

         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 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. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.