Cannady v. Cradduck et al
OPINION AND ORDER granting 8 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; The official capacity claims against the Medical Defendants are DISMISSED. Signed by Honorable Timothy L. Brooks on August 18, 2016. (rg)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
DAVID ALLEN CANNADY
CASE NO.: 5:16-CV-05039
SHERIFF KELLEY CRADDUCK;
DR. SAEZ; NURSE TYRANNY RAY;
NURSE PATRICIA DAVIS; B.
OPINION AND ORDER
This is a civil rights action filed by the Plaintiff David Allen Cannady pursuant to 42
U.S.C . § 1983.
Cannady proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis.
He is currently
incarcerated in the Grimes Unit of the Arkansas Department of Correction (ADC).
The case is currently before me on the Partial Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 8) filed by
Separate Defendants Dr. Roberto Saez, Nurse Tyranny Ray, and Nurse Patricia Davis (the
Medical Defendants). Specifically, the Medical Defendants seek dismissal of the official
capacity claims against them . Cannady had not responded to the Motion.
Accord ing to the allegations of the Complaint (Doc. 1), when Cannady was
incarcerated in the Benton County Detention Center (BCDC) , awaiting transfer to the ADC ,
the Medical Defendants denied him an intake physical , a tubercu losis (TB) test and/or
other necessary tests, and housed him with inmates with contagious diseases. He also
alleges the Medical Defendants failed to provide him with a safe, sanitary, and orderly jail
and denied him adequate exercise and nutrition . As against all DefendantS, Cannady
further alleges that he was subjected to unconstitutional conditions of confinement
including filthy cells , an inadequate diet, the facility being too hot in the summer and cold
in the winter, a lack of drinking water resulting in dehydration , a lack of space to exercise ,
no tuberculosis lights or censors , and being housed with inmates with contagious diseases.
As relief, Cannady seeks compensatory and punitive damages. He also asks for
medical tests to be performed to see if he contracted any diseases.
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. 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. lqbal,556 U.S. 662 , 678 (2009)) .
"The plausibility standard requires a plaintiff to show at the pleading stage that
success on the merits is more than a 'sheer possibility."' Id. , at 594. 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, 556 U.S. at 678; see a/so 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.).
The Medical Defendants maintain they are entitled to the dismissal of the official
capacity claims because Cannady has not alleged facts sufficient to assert a plausible
claim that an official institutional policy or custom reflected deliberate indifference to his
serious medical needs. The Medical Defendants are all employed by Southern Health
Partners, Inc. (SHP) , the contract medical care provider for the BCDC .
Official capacity claims are "functionally equivalent to a suit against the employing
governmental [or institutional] entity." Veatch v. Bartels Lutheran Home , 627 F.3d 1254,
1257 (8th Cir. 2010). In this case , Benton County has contracted with SHP to provide
healthcare to County prisoners. For this reason , the official capacity claims are treated as
claims against SHP. See Murray v. Lene , 595 F.3d 868 , 873 (8th Cir. 2010).
A Plaintiff "seeking to impose liability on a municipality [or institution] under§ 1983
[must] identify [an unconstitutional] policy or custom that caused the plaintiff's injury."
Board of Cnty. Comm'rs of Bryan Cnty., Okla . v. Brown , 520 U.S . 397 , 403 (1997). "There
are two basic circumstances under which municipal [or institutional] liability will attach : (1)
where a particular [institutional] policy or custom itself violates federal law, or directs an
employee to do so ; and (2) where a facially lawful [institutional] policy or custom was
adopted with 'deliberate indifference' to its known or obvious consequences." Moyle v.
Anderson , 571 F.3d 814, 817-18 (8th Cir. 2009) (citation omitted).
Cannady has not alleged a plausible "policy" cla im. In short, he has not pointed to
"any officially accepted guiding principle or procedure that was constitutionally inadequate. "
Jenkins v. Cnty. of Hennepin , 557 F.3d 628 , 633 (8th Cir. 2009). When asked to describe
the custom or policy on the form complaint, he merely makes the conclusory statements
that he was locked up with inmates with contagious diseases and subjected to
unconstitutional conditions of confinement. Cannady has not pointed to a "deliberate
choice of a guiding principle or procedure made by the institution 's official who has final
authority in such matters." Id.
"[A] custom can be shown only by adducing evidence of a continuing , widespread ,
persistent pattern of unconstitutional misconduct. " Id. at 634 (internal quotation marks and
citation omitted). Cannady has not asserted facts sufficient to state a plausible claim that
there was any widespread, persistent pattern of unconstitutional conduct.
The partial motion to dismiss (Doc. 8) filed by the Medical Defendants is GRANTED.
The official capacity claims against the Medical Defendants are DISMISSED. Personal
capacity claims against these Defendants , as well as the claims pending against the other
Defendants, will remain for further
IT IS SO ORDERED on this
~day of A
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?