Nelson v. Hjorth
Decision Date | 02 May 2018 |
Docket Number | 8:18CV88 |
Parties | LINDA NELSON, Plaintiff, v. VERN HJORTH, Defendant. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Nebraska |
Plaintiff, Linda Nelson, appearing pro se, filed her Complaint (Filing No. 1) on February 23, 2018, and was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis on March 8, 2018 (Filing No. 8). Nelson paid an initial partial filing fee on April 2, 2018.1 The court now conducts an initial review of the Complaint to determine whether summary dismissal is appropriate under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A.
Nelson is a pretrial detainee at the Madison County Jail in Madison, Nebraska. She sues the Madison County Sheriff, Vern Hjorth, both in his individual and official capacities, for alleged constitutional violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Nelson purports to bring this action on behalf of herself and "all others similarly situated." For her claims, Nelson alleges:
(Filing No. 1 at CM/ECF pp. 5-13).
For relief, Nelson "just want[s] the court to order the sheriff to follow the laws" (Filing No. 1 at CM/ECF p. 5). More specifically, Nelson states:
I would like the court to certify a class action because the problems at Madison County have effected [sic] hundreds of people over many years. I would like the court to order the jail (Hjorth) to adhere to the Nebraska Jail Standards and stop punishing people by making them cold, hungry and bored. Order him to stop punishing people without due process. Stop taking visits away. Make the phones actually a reasonable available way to contact family. Order the sheriff to make it so people can reasonably hope to afford a phone call to secure bail[;] ... to provide copies of the Nebraska Jail Standards as mandated by Nebraska law[;] ... to create a true grievance procedure[;]...not to override medical advice[;] ... [and] to pay all the costs of these proceedings .... [F]ind that Hjorth is guilty of neglect of duty pursuant to Neb RRS § 47-116[;] order Hjorth to pay the punitive damages established by Nebraska law for such neglect of duty[;] ... [and] for any further relief that the court deems proper ....
The 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).
Pro se 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) ().
"The 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).
"To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege the violation of a right secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States, and must show that the alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under color of state law." West v. Atkins,
For the reasons discussed below, the court finds and concludes that: (1) no actionable claim for relief is stated against Sheriff Hjorth in his individual capacity; (2) Madison County should be substituted as Defendant for Sheriff Hjorth in his official capacity; (3) Nelson cannot bring a class action or assert claims on behalf of other inmates; (4) Nelson cannot bring suit for alleged violations of Nebraska Jail Standards; (5) Nelson has alleged a plausible First Amendment claim to challenge a County policy that bars her receipt of newspaper and magazine subscriptions and has also alleged a plausible Fourteenth Amendment claim to challenge the adequacy ofthe diet she receives at the Madison County Jail; (6) Nelson's remaining allegations fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; (7) Nelson's Motion to Amend Complaint should be denied; and (8) Nelson's Motion for Appointment of Counsel should be denied.
"Public servants may be sued under § 1983 either in their official capacity, their individual capacity, or both." Johnson v. Outboard Marine Corp.,
172 F.3d 531, 535 (8th Cir. 1999). Individual-capacity suits seek to impose personal liability upon a governmental officer, agent, or employee for actions taken under color of state law. Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21, 25 (1991). In contrast, suing a defendant in his or her official capacity is generally an alternative means of suing the governmental entity. Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 165-66 (1985). The real party in interest is the entity, not the official named. Id. at 166 (). Official-capacity claims are "functionally equivalent to a suit against the employing governmental entity." Veatch v. Bartels Lutheran Home, 627 F.3d 1254, 1257 (8th Cir. 2010).
Although Nelson is suing Sheriff Hjorth in his...
To continue reading
Request your trial