Hyneman v. King et al
ORDER granting 33 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. Plaintiff Paulette Hyneman's claims against the Arkansas Department of Correction and her official capacity claims against Officers Shemiracle King and Kimberly Matthews for monetary damages are dismissed. Signed by Chief Judge Brian S. Miller on 05/15/2014. (rhm)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
CASE NO. 4:13CV00021 BSM
SHEMIRACLE KING, in her individual and official capacity
as a correctional officer for the
Arkansas Department of Correction et al.
Defendants’ motion for partial judgment on the pleadings [Doc. No. 33] is granted and
plaintiff Paulette Hyneman’s claims against the Arkansas Department of Correction (“ADC”)
and her official capacity claims against Officers Shemiracle King and Kimberly Matthews
for monetary damages are dismissed.
Viewing the record in the light most favorable to Hyneman, the non-moving party, the
facts are as follows. Hyneman was raped and sexually assaulted on numerous occasions by
defendant Officer Mark Wright while she was an inmate at the ADC. After Hyneman
reported these events to ADC officials, defendants Officers Shemiracle King and Kimberly
Matthews began retaliating against her by physically attacking and threatening her.
Hyneman filed suit against the ADC and against King, Matthews and Wright, in their
official and individual capacities, alleging violations of the Eighth and Fourteenth
Amendments. The ADC, King and Matthews now move for partial judgment on the
Judgment on the pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) is appropriate
when there are no material issues of fact to be resolved and the movant is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law. Faibisch v. University of Minn., 304 F.3d 797, 803 (8th Cir.
2002). The same standard of review for a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6) governs a motion for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c).
Westcott v. City of Omaha, 901 F.2d 1486, 1488 (8th Cir. 1990). To survive a motion to
dismiss, a complaint must contain “enough facts to state a claim of relief plausible on its
face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007). In considering the motion for
judgment on the pleadings, all facts pleaded by the non-moving party are accepted as true and
all reasonable inferences from the pleadings are granted in favor of the non-moving party.
Syverson v. FirePond, Inc., 383 F.3d 745, 749 (8th Cir. 2004).
Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings [Doc. No. 33] is granted and
Hyneman’s claims against the ADC, and for money damages against King and Matthews in
their official capacities, are dismissed.
The Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution bars 42 U.S.C. section
1983 cases seeking money damages against state agencies and against state officials in their
official capacities. King v. Dingle, 702 F.Supp.2d 1049, 1069 (D. Minn. 2010) (citing Will
v. Mich. Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989)). The Eleventh Amendment, however,
does not bar section 1983 individual capacity claims against state officials, nor does it bar
official capacity claims seeking prospective injunctive relief. Nix v. Norman, 879 F.2d 429,
432-33 (8th Cir. 1989); Murphy v. State of Ark., 127 F.3d 750, 754 (8th Cir. 1997).
Therefore, Hyneman’s claims against the ADC, and her official capacity claims against King
and Matthews seeking money damages, are dismissed. Hyneman may, however, proceed on
her individual capacity claims against King and Matthews and her official capacity claims
against King and Matthews seeking prospective injunctive relief.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 15th day of May 2014.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?