Saenz v. Washington County Detention Center

Filing 38

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
FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION
RANDOLPH RAY SAENZ

PLAINTIFF

v.

Civil No. 10-5172

SHERIFF TIM HELDER; JAIL
ADMINISTRATOR RANDALL
DENZER; DR. HOWARD; NURSE
RHONDA BRADLEY; NURSE
ZENOBIA DAVISON; and
NURSE RHONDA MESCHEDE

DEFENDANTS
ORDER

Now

on

this

21st

day

of

November,

2011,

comes

on

for

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
as follows:
1.

Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, filed this civil

rights action under 42 U.S.C. 1983.
2.

In

his

complaint,

plaintiff

alleges

that,

while

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.

Defendants identified

these individuals as Dr. Howard, Nurse Rhonda Bradley, Nurse Zenobia

Davison, and Nurse Rhonda Meschede.

The medical personnel were added

as defendants and served.
3.

The defendants have filed a motion for judgment on the

pleadings, maintaining they are entitled to judgment because only
official

capacity

claims

have

been

asserted

against

them.

The

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
official capacities.

He maintains each defendant showed deliberate

indifference to his serious medical needs and his safety.

With

respect to the policies and procedures of the WCDC, plaintiff asks
that he be allowed to obtain necessary information through discovery.
4.

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
States.

Under

§

1983,

a

defendant

may

be

sued

in

either

his

individual capacity, or in his official capacity, or claims may be
stated against a defendant in both his individual and his official
capacities.
Claims

against

individuals

in

their

official

capacities

“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.
In official-capacity

suits, the plaintiff must show that the entity’s “policy or custom”

-2-

played a part in the violation of federal law.

Id.

Individual

capacity claims “seek to impose individual liability upon a government
officer for actions taken under color of state law.”
5.

Id.

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.
6.

However,

the

Court

instead

finds

and

orders

that

the

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.
7.

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
fishing expedition.
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

-3-

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

-4-