Webb v. Nebraska

• Decision Date: 01 November 2019
• Docket Number: 8:19CV416
• Parties: YOHAN WEBB, Plaintiff, v. STATE OF NEBRASKA; PETE RICKETTS; CITY OF LINCOLN; LEIRON GAYLOR BAIRD; LANCASTER COUNTY; LINCOLN POLICE DEPT.; and JEFF BLIEMIESTER, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Nebraska

YOHAN WEBB, Plaintiff, v. STATE OF NEBRASKA; PETE RICKETTS; CITY OF LINCOLN; LEIRON GAYLOR BAIRD;LANCASTER COUNTY; LINCOLN POLICE DEPT.; and JEFF BLIEMIESTER, Defendants.

8:19CV416

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

November 1, 2019

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Plaintiff, Yohan Webb, filed his Complaint (Filing 1) on September 19, 2019, and was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis on October 7, 2019 (Filing 18). 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)(2) and 1915A.

I. SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT

Plaintiff alleges he is a pretrial detainee who has been in the custody of the Lancaster County Department of Corrections since June 2019, but also alleges he became a civilly committed detainee as of September 2019. (Filing 1, p. 4, ¶ III) According to public records on file with the County Court of Lancaster County, Nebraska, in Case No. CR19-6354, State v. Yohan Webb (available on the JUSTICE public database at www.nebraska.gov),¹ Plaintiff is currently charged with falseimprisonment, negligent child abuse, and disturbing the peace, and, not being able to meet bond requirements, has been detained since being arrested on June 1, 2019. Plaintiff was found to be mentally incompetent to stand trial on September 5, 2019, and was ordered committed to the Lincoln Regional Center until such time as the disability may be removed; a review hearing is scheduled for December 16, 2019. This order entered in Plaintiff's criminal case is not a civil commitment. See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-1823. All filings Plaintiff has made since the commencement of this action on September 19, 2019, have been mailed from the Lancaster County Department of Corrections. The Department's website (https://www.lincoln.ne.gov/aspx/cnty/jailpop/default.aspx) also lists Plaintiff is a "current inmate." The court therefore concludes Plaintiff remains a "prisoner" for purposes of the Prison Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA").²

The present action does not concern the June 1, 2019 arrest or Plaintiff's subsequent confinement. Instead, Plaintiff claims he was falsely arrested by police in Lincoln, Nebraska, on July 25, 2018, and later was wrongfully charged with possession of methamphetamine.³ Plaintiff further complains he was mistreated while being held by the Lancaster County Department of Corrections, from July 25 until his release on September 7, 2018.

Plaintiff alleges he is "chronically homeless" and was sleeping in his parked car on the morning of July 25, 2018, before being awakened by two Lincoln police officers (names unknown); one of the officers, a male detective, stated he wanted to ask Plaintiff a few questions; Plaintiff responded that he did not talk to police; the detective then searched Plaintiff, placed him in handcuffs, and instructed the other officer, a female in uniform, to transport Plaintiff to the station; the uniformed officer again searched Plaintiff, put him in a patrol car, and drove to the police station; Plaintiff resisted and began yelling for help when the officer attempted to remove him from the vehicle; the detective, who had driven to the station in an unmarked car, assisted the uniformed officer in pullingPlaintiff out of the patrol car and walking him into the station; Plaintiff continued screaming for help; a male officer (name unknown) took Plaintiff by the arm and walked Plaintiff down a hallway with the detective; the officer and the detective had a conversation outside of Plaintiff's hearing, after which the officer took Plaintiff back up the hallway, where the female officer had remained; the female officer then stepped outside while the male officer pulled Plaintiff into a corner and searched him; the detective reappeared and escorted Plaintiff to his unmarked vehicle; the detective transported Plaintiff to the Lancaster County Department of Corrections ("jail"). (Filing 1, pp. 12-16, ¶¶ 1-36)

Plaintiff alleges he was taken to the booking area at the jail, where two corrections officers (names unknown) searched him; four or five other corrections officers entered the area, and the first two left; one officer (name unknown) held onto Plaintiff, who was still handcuffed, while another officer (name unknown) searched Plaintiff's pockets; the detective then asked, "Do we have enough to hold him?" and officer holding Plaintiff replied, "Yep." (Filing 1, p. 17, ¶¶ 37-42)

Plaintiff alleges the handcuffs were removed and he was immediately strapped into a "suicide chair" with restraints on his forehead, chest, wrists, and legs; he was placed in a foul-smelling cell, which had a hole in the floor for a toilet; Plaintiff did not receive any food or water, and was forced to urinate on himself while strapped in the chair; Plaintiff was not freed from the "suicide chair" until sometime on July 27, when several corrections officers entered the cell and stripped Plaintiff naked; one of officers may have injured Plaintiff's shoulder by twisting his arm, and then forcibly put Plaintiff on the floor before leaving; someone later threw a "suicide suit" into the cell for Plaintiff to wear. (Filing 1, pp. 17-19, ¶¶ 43-50)

Plaintiff alleges he was transferred to a cell in a different area of the jail (R-Pod) at some unknown date and time; the new cell had a water fountain Plaintiff was able to use, but he was still not given any food; Plaintiff was not allowed to take a shower or even to wash up with soap; at some point, a female corrections officer (believed to be "O'Bryan" and responsible for inmate housing assignments) demanded to know how he'd gotten into the R-Pod cell; a few minutes later, two corrections officers (names unknown) moved Plaintiff to a dirty cell in the jail's medical area, where someone informed Plaintiff he was on "suicide watch" and was not to be given anything; Plaintiff finally got to eat the next day, but he still was not permitted to shower and was not given any bedding or supplies; Plaintiff was held in the medical area for "some days" before being moved to a cell in theS-Pod, which is the administrative segregation unit. Plaintiff alleges there was no disciplinary report to justify his placement in administrative segregation. (Filing 1, pp. 19-21, ¶¶ 53-68, 70)

Plaintiff alleges he was released from jail on September 7, 2018, after writing to the public defender and explaining that he was being held without having been charged with a crime or arraigned. (Filing 1, p. 21, ¶ 70; see also p. 6, ¶ VII.A) However, Plaintiff also alleges: "When they took me to court, I was arraigned and charged with possession of a controlled substance to wit: (meth). I received documents alleging that when I was removed from the suicide chair that my pants were searched and in my back right pocket a baggie of meth was found." (Filing 1, p. 19, ¶ 51) Plaintiff denies having any drugs on his person and speculates that someone either put the baggie in his pocket or lied about it. (Id., ¶ 52)

Finally, Plaintiff alleges the Lincoln Police Department had his car was towed away one or two days after his arrest, and subsequently auctioned it off as abandoned property. (Filing 1, p. 12, ¶ 3 & p. 28)

II. LEGAL STANDARDS ON INITIAL REVIEW

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) ("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.").

"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." Id., at 849 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

III. DISCUSSION OF CLAIMS

Liberally construing Plaintiff's Complaint, this is a civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. To state a claim under § 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).

Plaintiff names seven Defendants in his Complaint: (1) the State of Nebraska; (2) Nebraska Governor Pete Ricketts; (3) the City of Lincoln; (4) Lincoln Mayor Leiron Gaylor Baird; (5) Lancaster County; (6) the Lincoln Police Department; and (7) Lincoln Police Chief Jeff Bliemiester. Plaintiff indicates all Defendants are sued in their individual and official capacities. (Filing 1, pp. 2-3, ¶ I.B) For reasons which will discussed below, the court finds that the State of Nebraska and Governor Ricketts, in his official capacity, cannot be sued for damages in federal court under § 1983, that the Lincoln Police Department is not a suable entity, and that the Complaint fails to state a claim upon which...