United States District Court, D. Nebraska
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Richard G. Kopf Senior United States District Judge.
filed a Complaint on February 13, 2017. (Filing No.
1.) He has been granted leave to proceed in forma
pauperis. (Filing No. 5.) The court now conducts an
initial review of Plaintiff s Complaint to determine whether
summary dismissal is appropriate under 28 U.S.C. §
SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT
is confined at the Lincoln Regional Center ("LRC").
(Filing No. 1.) He names the Department of Health
and Human Services ("DHHS") and four purported LRC
employees as Defendants in his Complaint. (Id. at
CM/ECF pp. 1-2.) The four employees are Stacy Sweeny
("Sweeny"), Dr. Roger Donovick ("Dr.
Donovick"), Dr. Dennis Connolly ("Dr.
Connolly"), and Theresa Hansen, RN ("Hansen").
alleges that, while playing football, he landed on another
person's foot and hurt his ankle. (Id. at CM/ECF
p. 3.) He heard "2 loud pops." (Id.) Two
staff members helped him to the medical ward, where Hansen
examined his foot. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that
Hansen told him that his foot was sprained and gave him ice.
(Id.) This occurred on Saturday, August 6, 2016.
alleges that nothing else was done until Monday, August 8th,
when he saw Dr. Connolly. (Id.) Dr. Connolly ordered
x-rays. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that nothing else
was done until Thursday, August 11th, when he was called to
Dr. Connolly's office. (Id.) Plaintiff learned
that day that a bone in his foot was fractured.
(Id.) He requested a boot be put on his foot, but
was told that he had an appointment with Dr. Bozart on August
16th and it would be discussed then. (Id.) Plaintiff
alleges that, for the next three days, he requested that
something be put on his foot but nursing staff told him that
Dr. Connolly stated that he had to wait for his appointment
with Dr. Bozart. (Id. at CM/ECF p. 4.) On August
16th, Dr. Bozart put Plaintiffs foot in a boot.
alleges that, on November 8th, he had a follow-up appointment
with Dr. Bozart, who took a new set of x-rays. (Id.)
The x-rays showed that the bone in Plaintiffs foot had not
healed properly. (Id.) Plaintiff was told that he
had to have surgery and a screw would "fix it."
(Id.) Plaintiff alleges that, on November 24th, he
asked Hansen if the appointment for his surgery had been
made. (Id.) He was told that it had not.
(Id.) The surgery was scheduled for December 8th.
asserts claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for failure to
"provide necessary and appropriate healthcare."
(Id. at CM/ECF p. 5.) He also asserts claims under
Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act
("ADA") and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act
("RA") "for failing to provide reasonable
accommodations and/or modifications to policies to receive
healthcare in the most integrated setting appropriate to the
Plaintiffs needs." (Id.) Plaintiff continues,
"By not immediately transporting the Plaintiff to the
hospital the day the injury occurred and by after finding
that bone to be fractured, not doing anything until a week
later." (Id.) Plaintiff contends that, as
result of his injury, he was "passed over" for a
job. (Id. at CM/ECF p. 4.) He also states that he
"was denied work. My job was given to someone else due
to my injury." (Id. at CM/ECF p. 6.) He seeks
monetary damages and asks that the "Lincoln Regional
Center Medical Department be placed under
APPLICABLE STANDARDS OF REVIEW
court is required to review in forma pauperis complaints to
determine whether summary dismissal is appropriate.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). 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. §
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).