Amos Dumarce v. Nebraska Department of Correctional Services, Michelle Wilhelm, Warden; Jessica Rhoades, CPL.; and Kimberly McGill, Correctional Administrator

Summary

The court conducts an initial review under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e) and 1915A of Amos Dumarce’s pro se complaint concerning the cancellation and suspension of family visitation at the Nebraska State Penitentiary. The court dismisses claims against the Nebraska Department of Correctional Services and defendants in their official capacities on sovereign-immunity grounds, and dismisses claims asserted on behalf of family members for lack of standing. It allows Dumarce’s First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment visitation claims to proceed against the individual defendants, denies appointed counsel without prejudice, and directs service of process.

Holdings

1. Claims seeking monetary relief from the Nebraska Department of Correctional Services and the defendants in their official capacities are barred by sovereign immunity and must be dismissed.
2. Dumarce lacks standing to seek relief for alleged violations of the constitutional rights of his girlfriend, mother, or daughter, but may pursue claims based on injuries to his own rights.
3. The complaint and supplement plausibly state First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment claims against the individual defendants based on allegedly arbitrary cancellation and suspension of Dumarce's family visitation, and those claims may proceed to service of process.
4. The request for appointment of counsel is denied without prejudice to reassertion.

Questions Presented

1. Whether claims for monetary relief against the Nebraska Department of Correctional Services and state officials in their official capacities are barred by sovereign immunity.
2. Whether Dumarce had standing to assert constitutional claims based on alleged injuries to his family members.
3. Whether the allegations plausibly stated First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment claims based on the allegedly arbitrary cancellation and suspension of family visitation.
4. Whether appointed counsel should be requested for the indigent pro se plaintiff.

Disposition

other