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.

Mixon v. Omaha Police Department Officers

United States District Court, D. Nebraska

May 16, 2019

MATTHEW O. MIXON, Plaintiff,
v.
OMAHA POLICE DEPARTMENT OFFICERS, on 09-07-2015; DOUGLAS COUNTY DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS, MEDICAL DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEES, DOUGLAS COUNTY NEBRASKA, all as Defendants; DOUGLAS COUNTY CORRECTIONAL CENTER, MARK FOXALL, Director Correct Care Solutions; and DOCTOR ASH, Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          Richard G. Kopf Senior United States District Judge

         This matter is before the court upon review of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint (filing no. 36) to determine whether summary dismissal is appropriate under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e) and 1915A.

         I. BACKGROUND

         Plaintiff, an inmate currently in the custody of the Nebraska Department of Correctional Services (“NDCS”) at the Work Ethic Camp in McCook, Nebraska, filed this action on September 6, 2017, seeking damages for alleged injuries and rights violations relating to his 2015 arrest, conviction, and incarceration in the Douglas County Department of Corrections (“DCDC”). Plaintiff sued various Omaha Police Department (“OPD”) officers, Jacquelyn Morrison (“Morrison”) of the Douglas County Public Defender's Office, Julie L. Medina (“Medina”) of the Douglas County Attorney's Office, unspecified Medical Department Employees of the DCDC (hereinafter “DCDC medical employees”), and Douglas County alleging violations of his rights under the Fourth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments.

         The court conducted an initial review of Plaintiff's Complaint on October 30, 2018. (Filing No. 35.) The court dismissed Plaintiff's claims against the OPD officers, Medina, and Morrison in their official capacities for failure to state a claim and determined amendment would be futile as such claims would either be barred by prosecutorial immunity or the Supreme Court's decision in Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). The court, however, gave Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint with respect to his Eight Amendment deliberate indifference claim against Douglas County and/or the DCDC medical employees.

         Plaintiff filed his Amended Complaint on November 26, 2018. (Filing No. 36.)

         II. SUMMARY OF AMENDED COMPLAINT

         Plaintiff's Amended Complaint alleges violations of his rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments against the Douglas County Correctional Center[1]; Mark Foxall (“Foxall”), Director of the DCDC; Correct Care Solutions; Dr. Ash of the DCDC Medical Department; the DCDC medical employees; and Douglas County in their official and individual capacities.

         Plaintiff's “Summary of Facts” borrows language from the court's Memorandum and Order on initial review (filing no. 36) and states, in relevant part:

Plaintiff's injuries arise out of his arrest on September 7, 2015, and November 19, 2015, both times while being confined within the (“DCDC”) for the same injuries.
Plaintiff states that the Defendant's [sic], DCDC medical employees knew that Plaintiff needed medications, delayed giving him his medications, did not give him his medications correctly or in the proper amount and failed to properly house him while confined within (DCDC). As a result, Plaintiff experienced confusion, dizziness, sleepiness, loss of appetite, multiple seizures, and injuries from falling due to seizures. . . . Plaintiff further states that the DCDC placed him on the second floor and required him to walk up the stairs which was dangerous due to his seizure condition not being properly provided and medicated. . . . Plaintiff also states he [was] forced to live [in] an “unsafe housing [sic] mod” where he lacked access to an emergency button if he had a seizure and where no corrections officers were in the mod between 11:00 p.m. and 7:00 A.M.

(Filing No. 36 at CM/ECF pp. 2-3 (citations omitted) (fourth alteration in original).)

         As relief, Plaintiff seeks $2, 000, 000.00 in damages and “sanctions” against all Defendants. (Id. at CM/ECF p. 4.)

         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.