Brady v. Hobbs et al

Filing 77

ORDER adopting 67 Partial Recommended Disposition; denying 40 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; granting 55 62 67 Motions to Dismiss. Robert Brady's claims against Defendants McKenney, Stell, and Pratt are dismissed wi thout prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. This matter is therefore again referred to United States Magistrate Judge Beth Deere for disposition or recommended disposition, as appropriate, of all pretrial matters. Signed by Judge J. Leon Holmes on 8/7/2015. (ks)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
PINE BLUFF DIVISION
ROBERT JEFFREY BRADY, ADC #116780
v.

PLAINTIFF

NO. 5:14CV00103 JLH-BD

STEPHEN WILLIAMS, Warden, Tucker Unit,
Arkansas Department of Correction; et al.

DEFENDANTS

ORDER
Robert Jeffrey Brady is an inmate in the Arkansas Department of Correction. He alleges that
he was incarcerated at the Tucker Unit on August 20, 2011, when officers of that unit permitted an
attack on him that resulted in a black right eye, a broken left leg, and dislocation of his left foot. He
also alleges that over the course of the next two years his medical treatment was inadequate,
ultimately resulting in the loss of his foot. He has alleged deliberate indifference claims against
employees of the Ouachita Regional Correctional Unit of the Arkansas Department of Correction,
where he was transferred after the attack, as well as against employees of Corizon, LLC, a private
healthcare provider that provides medical services to inmates pursuant to a contract with the ADC.
All of the defendants have filed motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief may
be granted. In addition, the Corizon defendants have filed motions to dismiss based on improper
venue.
United States Magistrate Judge Beth Deere entered a partial recommended disposition in
which she recommended that the motions filed by the Corizon defendants be granted (Documents
#55, #62, and #65). She also recommended that the motions filed by the Ouachita Regional
Correctional Unit employees be granted in part and denied in part. More specifically, she
recommended that Brady’s claims for money damages from the Ouachita Regional Correctional Unit
employees in their official capacities be dismissed as barred by sovereign immunity. She

recommended that the Court permit Brady to proceed both on his failure-to-protect claim and his
deliberate indifference claim, overruling the defendants’ objection that the claims are unrelated.
Finally, she recommended that the Court hold that the complaint states a claim upon which relief
can be granted on Brady’s claims against the employees of the Ouachita Regional Correctional Unit.
The employees of the Ouachita Regional Correctional Unit have objected, arguing that the
complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted against them and contending Judge
Deere’s recommendations are inconsistent insofar as she recommends that the Court find that the
complaint fails to state a claim against the Corizon employees, who were responsible for Brady’s
medical care, but that the complaint states a claim against the Ouachita Regional Correctional Unit
employees, who were not responsible for Brady’s medical care.
Upon de novo review, the Court adopts the proposed findings and partial recommended
disposition. Brady has not objected to Judge Deere’s recommendation that the motions to dismiss
filed by the Corizon employees be granted. Therefore, the Court adopts that part of the partial
recommended disposition. The motions to dismiss filed by Dr. Gregory McKenney (Document
#55), Juanita Stell (Document #62), and James Pratt (Document #65) are GRANTED. Robert
Brady’s claims against those three defendants are dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted.
Brady has not objected to Judge Deere’s recommendations that his claims for money
damages against the Ouachita Regional Correctional Unit employees in their official capacities be
dismissed as barred by sovereign immunity. The Court therefore adopts that portion of the partial
recommended disposition. Robert Brady’s claims for money damages against the employees of the

2

Ouachita Regional Correctional Unit in their official capacities are barred by sovereign immunity
and are therefore dismissed with prejudice.
Judge Deere also recommended that the state-law tort claims against the Ouachita Regional
Correctional Unit defendants be dismissed without prejudice based on the statutory immunity
provided by Arkansas Code Annotated § 19-10-305(a). Brady has not objected to that portion of
the partial recommended disposition. The Court therefore adopts that recommendation. Robert
Brady’s state-law tort claims against the employees of the Ouachita Regional Correctional Unit are
dismissed without prejudice.
Finally, as noted, the Ouachita Regional Correctional Unit employees contend that the
complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted against them. Admittedly, the
allegations in the complaint against each individual defendant are sparse. Nevertheless, viewing
Brady’s complaint liberally, as the Court is required to do for pro se pleadings, the Court cannot say
at this time that the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Consequently,
the Court adopts the recommendation by Judge Deere that the motion to dismiss filed by the
employees of the Ouachita Regional Correctional Unit be DENIED. Document #40.
This matter is therefore again referred to United States Magistrate Judge Beth Deere for
disposition or recommended disposition, as appropriate, of all pretrial matters. The Court notes that
Brady has not moved for appointment of counsel. If he wishes to proceed pro se, certainly he may
do so. If, however, he moves for appointment of counsel, that motion should be given serious
consideration by Judge Deere. Brady’s allegations involve a tragic medical outcome. He attempts
to allege that the tragic outcome is the result of deliberate indifference by the correctional officers,
who allegedly failed to take him to the healthcare providers in a timely fashion, and that it is the

3

result of deliberate indifference by the healthcare providers; but it is apparent that Brady is unable
to articulate his claims in a clear fashion. Consequently, if Brady moves for appointment of counsel,
this may be one of those rare instances in which appointment of counsel early in the proceeding,
rather than after discovery has been concluded, would be appropriate so that Brady would have
professional assistance in identifying what his claims are and against whom they should be asserted.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 7th day of August, 2015.

__________________________________
J. LEON HOLMES
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4