United States District Court, D. Nebraska
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Richard G. Kopf Senior United States District Judge
filed a Complaint on August 14, 2017. (Filing No.
1.) He has been given leave to proceed in forma
pauperis. (Filing No. 9.) The court now conducts an
initial review of Plaintiff's Complaint to determine
whether summary dismissal is appropriate under 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1915(e) and 1915A.
SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT
is a prisoner currently confined at the Lancaster County
Jail. He brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983
against Corrections Care Solutions, Dr. Che, Dr. Billups, and
the director of the Lancaster County Jail, Brad Johnson, in
their official capacities for deliberate indifference to his
serious medical needs. (Filing No. 1.) Liberally
construed, he also sues Jeff Terry (“Terry”) and
Jenny Hoyt (“Hoyt”), who appear to be nurses at
the Lancaster County Jail. (Id. at CM/ECF p.4.)
basis for Plaintiff's claim is that staff at Lancaster
County Jail has failed to provide him appropriate and timely
medical treatment over a period of three months for a rash
that spread over Plaintiff's entire body. (Id. at
states that nurses Terry and Hoyt and Dr. Che and Dr. Billups
attributed Plaintiff's condition to “just a
rash” resulting from laundry detergent. (Id. at
CM/ECF p.4.) Plaintiff alleges that he was eventually
diagnosed by a dermatologist with scabies, but medical staff
and Corrections Care Solutions are not treating Plaintiff
according to the protocol prescribed by the dermatologist and
his condition is not improving. (Id. at CM/ECF
pp.4-5.) Plaintiff has attached several “Inmate
Medical/Mental Health Request Forms” in support of his
allegations that he did not receive timely and appropriate
treatment. (Id. at CM/ECF pp.5, 14-22.)
Plaintiff also filed a grievance, but had not received a
response at the time of the filing of his Complaint. (Id.
at CM/ECF pp.12-13.)
result of the alleged delay and failure to provide
appropriate treatment, Plaintiff has suffered severe itching
to the point where he scratched his skin until he bled
leaving many marks and scars all over his body. (Id. at
CM/ECF p.5). Plaintiff seeks $300, 000.00 as
compensation for “the pain and suffering and permanent
scarring” resulting from the alleged “unfit
medical procedures.” (Id.)
APPLICABLE STANDARDS OF 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).
construed, Plaintiff here alleges federal constitutional
claims. To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a
plaintiff must allege a violation of rights protected by the
United States Constitution or created by federal statute and
also must show that the alleged deprivation was caused by
conduct of a person acting under color of state law. West
v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988); Buckley v.
Barlow, 997 F.2d 494, 495 (8th Cir. 1993).
sues Corrections Care Solutions, Dr. Che, Dr. Billups, and
Brad Johnson in their official capacities. Liberally
construed, Plaintiff also asserts claims against Terry and
Hoyt, although neither is named as a defendant in the
caption. The court must ...