Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
- Rechtsrecherche mit Zugriff auf über 1 Million Quellen
- Dokumentenautomatisierung
- Mandatsverwaltung
- Gehostet in der EU und der Schweiz
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
21-1970•Timothy Joseph Carroll v. Chris Luebe
21-1970Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit31.08.2022
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 22-1343
___________________________
Timothy Joseph Carroll,
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant,
v.
Chris Luebe; Leon Chapmen; Hunter Lewis; James Johnson; Edgar Olivan; Corey
Black; Julie Batenhorst; Joy Johnson, Nurse; Kain Sparr; Mike Mejstrik; Verlin
Redlinger; Cheryl Heiman; Chris Neuhaus; Ray Winter; Dr. Juvet Che; Andrew
Corbin; Tyler Stender; Kolton Neuhaus,
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants - Appellees.
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the District of Nebraska - Omaha
____________
Submitted: August 22, 2022
Filed: August 25, 2022
[Unpublished]
____________
Before COLLOTON, GRUENDER, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Timothy Carroll, an involuntarily committed patient in a sex offender treatment
program at Norfolk Regional Center in Nebraska, appeals an order of the district
-- 1 of 2 --
court1 dismissing his action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Upon careful de novo
review, we agree with the district court that the complaint did not sufficiently allege
which, if any, defendants knew there was a substantial risk of serious harm to Carroll,
and did not allege specific facts indicating how the defendants responded
unreasonably to the risk. See Nelson v. Shuffman, 603 F.3d 439, 446-47 & n.3 (8th
Cir. 2010); Keeper v. King, 130 F.3d 1309, 1314 (8th Cir. 1997); Martin v. Sargent,
780 F.2d 1334, 1337 (8th Cir. 1985). We conclude that the district court did not
abuse its discretion in denying Carroll’s post-judgment motion for reconsideration,
as he did not explain why he had not been able to complete the amended complaint
by the extended deadline or otherwise show exceptional circumstances warranting
relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). See Alleruzzo v. SuperValu, Inc. (In re SuperValu,
Inc.), 925 F.3d 955, 962 (8th Cir. 2019); Ryan v. Ryan, 889 F.3d 499, 507-08 (8th Cir.
2018). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
______________________________
1The Honorable John M. Gerrard, United States District Judge for the District
of Nebraska.
-2-
-- 2 of 2 --
Verbinden Sie Omnilex, um den Rechtskorpus über Ihren KI-Assistenten zu durchsuchen.