-BAB Waller v. Vaillancourt et al
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Honorable Barry A. Bryant on September 14, 2011. (cap)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
KENNETH L. WALLER
Civil No. 4:10-cv-04186
KIM VAILLANCOURT, Contract
Manager, Correctional Medical Services
(CMS); NURSE KYM (CARMALITA)
WILLIAMS; DR. NASH; and NURSE
Kenneth L. Waller filed this case pursuant to the provisions of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He
proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis. The case is before me pursuant to the consent of the parties.
ECF No. 14. Separate Defendant Kim Vaillancourt has filed a motion for judgment on the
pleadings (ECF No. 12) pursuant to Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff
filed a response. ECF No. 15. The motion is before me for decision.
Plaintiff is currently an inmate in the Arkansas Department of Correction, Grimes Unit. The
events that are the subject of this case occurred while Plaintiff was incarcerated in the Miller County
Correctional Facility (MCCF).
According to the allegations of the complaint (ECF No. 1), Plaintiff was physically assaulted
by fellow inmates on March 31, 2010, suffering injuries to his back. Beginning on April 1, 2010,
Plaintiff alleges he sought medical care. He maintains Nurse Williams, Nurse Stewart and Dr. Nash
exhibited deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. While Defendant Vaillancourt is
listed as a Defendant, Plaintiff alleges no actions taken by her nor does he allege she was personally
involved in his medical care.
2. Applicable Standard
On a motion for judgment on the pleadings, a court applies the same standard as in a 12(b)(6)
motion for failure to state a claim. Glover v. Merck & Co., Inc., 345 F. Supp. 2d 994, 996 (D. Minn.
2004)(citing St. Paul Ramsey County Medical Ctr. v. Pennington County, S.D., 857 F.2d 1185, 1187
(8th Cir. 1988)). Rule 8(a) contains the general pleading rules and requires a complaint to present
“a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ.
P. 8(a)(2). “In order to meet this standard, and survive a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), ‘a
complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim for relief that is
plausible on its face.’” Braden v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 588 F.3d 585, 594 (8th Cir. 2009)(quoting
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, ___ U.S. ___, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1940 (2009)).
“The plausibility standard requires a plaintiff to show at the pleading stage that success on
the merits is more than a ‘sheer possibility.’” Braden, 588 F.3d at 594 (quoting Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at
1949). The standard does “not impose a probability requirement at the pleading stage; it simply calls
for enough fact to raise a reasonable expectation,” or reasonable inference, that the “defendant is
liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949; see also Stone v. Harry, 364 F.3d 912,
914 (8th Cir. 2004)(While pro se complaints are liberally construed, they must allege sufficient facts
to support the claims.).
Defendant Vaillancourt contends she is entitled to judgment in her favor because no factual
allegations of any kind are made against her and Plaintiff seeks no relief from her. In response,
Plaintiff only argues that his entire complaint should not be dismissed.
There is no respondeat superior liability under § 1983. See e.g., Choate v. Lockhart, 7 F.3d
1370, 1376 (8th Cir. 1993). “Supervisors can, however, incur liability . . . for their personal
involvement in a constitutional violation, or when their corrective inaction amounts to deliberate
indifference to or tacit authorization of the violative practices.” Langford v. Norris, 614 F.3d 445,
460 (8th Cir. 2010)(internal quotation marks and citations omitted). In this case, the complaint is
completely devoid of any basis of liability against Defendant Vaillancourt.
For the reasons stated, the motion for judgment on the pleadings (ECF No. 12) filed by
Separate Defendant Vaillancourt is GRANTED, and Defendant Vaillancourt is dismissed as a
Defendant in this case.
DATED this 14th day of September 2011.
/s/ Barry A. Bryant
HON. BARRY A. BRYANT
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE 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?