Merchant v. Corizon Health, Inc. et al
Filing
39
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - NOW THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, that the motion to amend (docket no. 27 ) and the motion to dismiss (docket no. 19 ) are GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Merchant shall file his proposed amended complaint afte r striking all allegations against IDOC and all allegations against Warden Yordy in his official capacity. In addition, Merchant shall strike any claims for medical malpractice against Warden Yordy in his individual capacity. Signed by Judge B. Lynn Winmill. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (cjs)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO
GARY L. MERCHANT,
Case No. 1:17-cv-524-BLW
Plaintiff,
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER
v.
CORIZON, L.L.C., JOHN MIGLIORI,
M.D., IDAHO DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS, WARDEN KEITH
YORDY, AND JOHN/JANE DOES I-X
WHOSE TRUE IDENTITIES ARE
PRESENTLY UNKNOWN,
Defendants.
INTRODUCTION
The Court has before it a motion to dismiss filed by defendants and a motion to
amend filed by plaintiff Merchant. The motions are fully briefed and at issue. For the
reasons expressed below, the Court will grant in part both motions.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Merchant, an inmate at the Idaho State Correctional Institution, alleges
that his leg had to be amputated after it became severely infected due to the defendant’s
deliberate indifference. Merchant has sued (1) the Idaho Department of Corrections
(IDOC); (2) Warden Keith Yordy; (3) Corizon, a private corporation in contract with the
State of Idaho to provide medical services to inmates; and (4) two treating physicians
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 1
who were Corizon employees. Merchant’s original complaint contained claims (1) under
§ 1983; (2) for medical malpractice; and (3) for negligent training and supervision.
That original complaint contained several errors that prompted two of the
defendants – IDOC and Warden Yordy – to file the motion to dismiss that is now before
the Court. Merchant responded with a motion to amend, correcting some of those errors.
For example, Merchant’s original complaint contained a medical malpractice claim
against IDOC and Warden Yordy, a claim that Merchant now concedes is improper, and
he drops it from his proposed amended complaint.
While the defendants acknowledge the liberal policy allowing amendments at this
early stage of the litigation, they point out that Merchant’s motion failed to attach the
proposed amended complaint. Merchant has now corrected that problem.
The defendants argue next that the proposed amendments carry through a flaw
from the original complaint: They continue to seek monetary damages against IDOC,
and against Warden Yordy in his official capacity. These claims are barred by the
Eleventh Amendment and must be dismissed. Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 166
(1985).
A plaintiff may seek declaratory or injunctive relief against a state entity such as
IDOC or Warden Yordy in his official capacity, but Merchant has not included any such
claim either in his original complaint or in his proposed amendments. Thus, IDOC must
be dismissed as a party defendant, and all claims against Warden Yordy in his official
capacity must likewise be dismissed.
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 2
Merchant’s proposed amendments also seek to add a claim against Warden Yordy
in his individual capacity for negligent training and supervision. Merchant’s allegations
in this claim do not mention § 1983, and so the Court assumes that this claim is based
entirely on Idaho law. Neither party has briefed the requirements of Idaho law on this
claim, and so the Court will not resolve whether Merchant’s allegations address the
elements of this claim. Instead, defendants argue that the proposed amendments fail to
contain any allegations specifically explaining how Warden Yordy is responsible for
deficient training and supervision. But the proposed amendments – liberally read as the
Court is required to do – allege that Warden Yordy imposed a policy of cutting costs,
hiring unqualified medical staff, and adopting deficient training and supervision
programs. Those allegations are specific enough to satisfy the particularity requirements.
For all of these reasons, the Court will grant in part both the motion to amend and
the motion to dismiss. Merchant shall file his proposed amended complaint after striking
all allegations against IDOC and all allegations against Warden Yordy in his official
capacity. In addition, Merchant shall strike any claims for medical malpractice against
Warden Yordy in his individual capacity.
ORDER
In accordance with the Memorandum Decision set forth above,
NOW THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, that the motion to amend
(docket no. 27) and the motion to dismiss (docket no. 19) are GRANTED IN PART AND
DENIED IN PART. Merchant shall file his proposed amended complaint after striking
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 3
all allegations against IDOC and all allegations against Warden Yordy in his official
capacity. In addition, Merchant shall strike any claims for medical malpractice against
Warden Yordy in his individual capacity.
DATED: November 5, 2018
_________________________
B. Lynn Winmill
Chief U.S. District Court Judge
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 4
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?