Saenz v. Washington County Detention Center
ORDER adopting in part Report and Recommendations re 33 Report and Recommendations and taking under advisement 27 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. Signed by Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren on November 21, 2011. (tg)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
RANDOLPH RAY SAENZ
Civil No. 10-5172
SHERIFF TIM HELDER; JAIL
DENZER; DR. HOWARD; NURSE
RHONDA BRADLEY; NURSE
ZENOBIA DAVISON; and
NURSE RHONDA MESCHEDE
consideration the Report And Recommendation Of The Magistrate Judge
(document #33)(the “R&R”), to which there are no objections.
The Court, being well and sufficiently advised, finds and orders
Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, filed this civil
rights action under 42 U.S.C. 1983.
incarcerated at the Washington County Detention Center (“WCDC”), he
was subjected to overcrowded conditions and was provided shower shoes
which, due to a pre-existing condition, caused increased foot pain.
The plaintiff also alleges that he has been on Nortriptyline and was
having a hard time getting anyone to pay for his medication.
The plaintiff originally named just the WCDC as a defendant.
The Court substituted Sheriff Tim Helder and Jail Administrator
Randall Denzer as defendants.
When they responded to the complaint,
these defendants were directed to identify the medical personnel who
had treated, or refused to treat, plaintiff.
these individuals as Dr. Howard, Nurse Rhonda Bradley, Nurse Zenobia
Davison, and Nurse Rhonda Meschede.
The medical personnel were added
as defendants and served.
The defendants have filed a motion for judgment on the
pleadings, maintaining they are entitled to judgment because only
defendants further allege that plaintiff has not asserted that any
policy, custom, or practice of the WCDC caused, or was the moving
force behind, any alleged constitutional violations.
In plaintiff’s response to the motion, he indicates that he in
fact intends to sue the defendants in both their individual and
He maintains each defendant showed deliberate
indifference to his serious medical needs and his safety.
respect to the policies and procedures of the WCDC, plaintiff asks
that he be allowed to obtain necessary information through discovery.
Section § 1983 provides a federal cause of action for the
deprivation, under color of law, of a citizen’s “rights, privileges,
or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws” of the United
individual capacity, or in his official capacity, or claims may be
stated against a defendant in both his individual and his official
“generally represent only another way of pleading an action against
an entity of which an officer is an agent.”
21, 24 (1991)(internal citations omitted).
Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S.
suits, the plaintiff must show that the entity’s “policy or custom”
played a part in the violation of federal law.
capacity claims “seek to impose individual liability upon a government
officer for actions taken under color of state law.”
Here, the complaint does not indicate the capacity in which
each defendant is being sued.
However, the plaintiff, in response to
the instant motion, indicates it is his intent to sue all defendants
in both capacities.
The R&R recommends that the complaint should be
so construed, and recommends denying the instant motion and directing
the plaintiff to file an amended complaint.
plaintiff is given twenty (20) days to file an amended complaint,
specifying the capacity in which he is suing each defendant, and in
light of the R&R and this Order, fleshing out his official capacity
claims if he so chooses.
The Court declines to permit plaintiff discovery "to obtain
necessary information" on which to base some allegation that there
exists some policy, custom or practice by the WCDC which caused the
alleged constitutional violations.
Without more than now appears, to
permit such would be nothing more than granting a license for a
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Report And Recommendation Of
The Magistrate Judge (document #33) is adopted in part, and taken
under advisement in part.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion for judgment on the
pleadings (document #27) is taken under advisement.
FINALLY, IT IS ORDERED that, within twenty (20) days, plaintiff
is directed to file an amended complaint specifying the capacity in
which each defendant is being sued and how each defendant is alleged
to have violated plaintiff’s constitutional rights.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Jimm Larry Hendren
JIMM LARRY HENDREN
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?