United States District Court, D. Nebraska
JEROME M. CLARK, Plaintiff,
NEBRASKA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION'S, MICKIE BAUM, Record's Administrator, VAL GRANHOLM, Records, SCOTT FRAKES, Prison Director, and PETE RICKETES, Govenor, Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Richard G. Kopf Senior United States District Judge.
Jerome Clark, a pro se litigant now incarcerated at the
Lincoln Correctional Center (“LCC”), filed this
42 U.S.C. § 1983 action in which he complains about a
hodgepodge of issues ranging from the restoration of good
time to conditions of confinement. The court has granted
Plaintiff permission to proceed in forma pauperis, and the
court now conducts an initial review of the Complaint (Filing
No. 1) to determine whether summary dismissal is
appropriate under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e) and 1915A.
SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT
brings this § 1983 action against the Nebraska
Department of Correctional Services (“NDCS”),
state employees Mickie Baum and Val Granholm who deal with
“records, ” NDCS Director Frakes, and Nebraska
Governor Ricketts in their official capacities only.
Plaintiff broadly challenges “dead time not being sent,
jail time credit being in error, miscellaneous detainer's
and good time restoration miscalculation's, ” as
well as “staff assault's, k2 drug abuse, on going
overcrowding, alienation, extortion, stealing and
fighting.” (Filing No. 1 at CM/ECF p. 3.)
refers to “3 years of undocumented dead time it's
not stated on my time sentence inquiry sheet in a mix of
miscalculated time sentence errors from jail time credit good
time and error of sentence structure.” (Filing No.
1 at CM/ECF p. 7.) He also complains about
“being stampeded by people, ” inmates who
“steal fight and alienate you so they can extort money
from each other, ” guards who are “bring'n in
k2 at the nebraska state penitentiary, ” and being
“over run with petty thieves” who have assaulted
two of his cell mates for debts related to k2. (Filing No. 1
at CM/ECF p. 5.)
to Plaintiff's Complaint are documents indicating that
335 days of good time were restored to him on June 8, 2017,
based on Plaintiff's “Factor Rating Score, ”
“Sentence Structure, ” and “medical,
security or assignment needs.” The documents also show
that Plaintiff's June 16, 2017, “classification
appeal” requesting more good time was denied. (Filing
No. 1 at CM/ECF pp. 16-17.)
Plaintiff's prayer for relief is not entirely clear, it
appears he requests to be released, to confer with a lawyer
after his release about money damages, and to “see a
doctor to have me highly and heavily medicated after being
incarcerated in nebraska.” (Filing No. 1 at CM/ECF
LEGAL 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).
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 the NDCS and Defendants Baum, Granholm, Frakes, and