Wright v. Bates et al (INMATE2)

Filing 27

ORDER granting 23 Motion for Leave to File a motion for reconsideration; as further set out in order; denying 23 Motion to Reconsider. Signed by Honorable Susan Russ Walker on 2/6/09. (vma, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION ____________________________ WILLIE JAMES WRIGHT, #3998 Plaintiff, v. * * * 2:08-CV-965-WKW (WO) MEDICAL STAFF IN THE M.C.D.F. - * DR. BATES, et al., * Defendants. ____________________________ ORDER ON MOTION Before the court is Plaintiff's motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration. Upon consideration of the motion, it is ORDERED that the motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration (Doc. No. 23) be and is hereby GRANTED. Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of his request that he be allowed to amend his complaint to name Quality Correctional Health Care as a defendant. The court denied the motion to amend finding that Plaintiff's theory of liability against the proposed defendant, i.e., respondeat superior, did not state a viable claim for relief in this action. (See Doc. No. 16.) In support of his request that the court reconsider its January 28, 2009 order denying his motion to amend, the court notes that Plaintiff sets forth the correct legal argument for supervisory liability. He then asserts in further support of his motion that "Quality Correctional Health Care is indeed responsible both causally and directly for the actions of its employees because there are many lawsuits that have been filed against doctor Johnny E. Bates, and the medical department as a whole," and that "Quality Correctional Health Care [is] . . . the main defendant solely responsible for damage inflicted by their employee's negligent actions." (Doc. No. 23, at 3-4.) Because the basis for Plaintiff's claim against Quality Correctional Health Care remains grounded in a theory of respondeat superior for the acts of its employees, the undersigned concludes that Plaintiff's motion to reconsider is due to be denied. See Oklahoma City v. Tuttle, 471 U.S. 808, 820 (1981); Monell v. Department of Social Services of the City of New York, 436 U.S. 658, 691 (1978). In light of the foregoing, it is ORDERED that the motion to reconsider be and is hereby DENIED. DONE, this 6th day of February 2009. /s/ Susan Russ Walker SUSAN RUSS WALKER CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?