Hendrix v. Wise

Filing 14

ORDER granting 11 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. Plaintiff's Complaint is dismissed without prejudice. Signed by Honorable Susan O. Hickey on January 21, 2016. (mll)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
TEXARKANA DIVISION

JOSHUA HENDRIX
PLAINTIFF
v.

Civil No. 4:14-cv-04158-SOH-BAB

ROGER WISE, ET. AL.

DEFENDANTS

ORDER
Plaintiff, Joshua Hendrix, submitted this pro se action for filing on December 1, 2014. ECF
No. 1. Currently before the Court is Defendant Wise’s Motion to Dismiss. ECF No. 11.
I. Background
The events that are the subject of this lawsuit occurred while Plaintiff was incarcerated in the
Sebastian County Detention Center and Southwest Arkansas Community Correction Center. (ECF
No. 1). Plaintiff filed this Complaint on December 1, 2014. (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff alleges his
constitutional rights were violated when Defendants were deliberately indifferent to his pre-existing
medical condition. (ECF 1, p. 4-5). Plaintiff brought this action against Defendant Roger Wise
and Nurse Cindy in both their official and individual capacities. (ECF. No. 1 p.4). It appears that
Nurse Cindy was not served. However, as discussed below, it will not be necessary to do so.
Defendant Wise filed this Motion to Dismiss on April 7, 2015. (ECF No. 11). Plaintiff has not
responded in any fashion to the Motion to Dismiss.
II. Legal Standard
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.
1

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 to 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, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (internal quotations omitted)). “A claim has
facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the
reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft, 556 U.S.
at 678. While the Court will liberally construe a pro se plaintiff’s complaint, the plaintiff must
allege sufficient facts to support their claims. See Stone v. Harry, 364 F.3d 912, 914 (8th Cir.
2004).
III. Discussion
Merely listing a Defendant in a case caption is insufficient to support a claim against the
Defendant. Krych v. Hass, 83 Fed. Appx. 854, 855 (8th Cir. 2003) (citing Potter v. Clark, 497 F.2d
1206, 1207 (7th Cir. 1974) (per curiam) (noting that court properly dismissed pro se complaint that
was silent as to defendant except for his name appearing in caption)). Even in an official capacity
suit under section 1983, “a plaintiff must show either that the official named in the suit took an
action pursuant to an unconstitutional governmental policy or custom . . . or that he or she possessed
final authority over the subject matter at issue and used that authority in an unconstitutional manner.”
Sexton v. Wayne, 4:13-cv-3171, 2014 WL 1767472, at *1 (D. Neb. May 2, 2014) (quoting Nix v.
Norman, 879 F.2d 429, 433 (8th Cir. 1989).
Plaintiff’s claim must be dismissed because he did not allege any claims against either
Defendant Wise or Defendant Nurse Cindy. Instead, he merely listed them as Defendants in the
caption of the case.

2

IV. Conclusion
Accordingly, Defendant Wise’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 11) is
GRANTED. Plaintiff’s Complaint against all Defendants is DISMISSED without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 21st day of January 2016.
/s/ Susan O. Hickey
Susan O. Hickey
United States District Judge

3