United States District Court, D. Nebraska
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Richard G. Kopf Senior United States District Judge.
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.
SUMMARY OF AMENDED COMPLAINT
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
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.)
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
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
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.)
seeks $2, 000, 000.00 in damages.
STANDARDS ON INITIAL REVIEW
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).
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.”).
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).