Newsome v. Madison County, Illinois et al

Filing 22

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, Plaintiff is GRANTED leave to amend her complaint. The amended complaint is due on or before January 23, 2017. Defendants' Motion (Doc. 19 ) to Dismiss is MOOT. Signed by Judge J. Phil Gilbert on 12/20/2016. (jdh)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
TILIA NEWSOME, as Administrator of
The Estate of John Newsome, Sr. deceased,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 16-cv-01103-JPG-DGW
v.
MADISON COUNTY, ILLINOIS, et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on Defendants’ Motion (Doc. 19) to Dismiss Plaintiff’s
Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The Plaintiff filed a timely
response (Doc. 20).
1. Background.
According to the complaint, John Newson, Sr. was beaten by another inmate while in custody
of the Madison County Jail and died due to his injuries. Plaintiff, as administrator of Mr.
Newson’s estate, has brought various allegations against the defendants alleging that Mr.
Newsome was housed in the day room and not in a cell. That the defendants were aware that the
other inmate had a known, extensive, and violent history yet was allowed in the day room with Mr.
Newsome. The Plaintiff further alleges that the defendants failed to any action to ensure the
safety of Mr. Newsome and in fact, placed Mr. Newsome in danger by not segregating the other
violent inmate from non-violent offenders.

Finally, the Plaintiff alleges that it took “nearly two”

hours after Mr. Newsome was assaulted for the defendants to find him unresponsive resulting in
Mr. Newsome’s death in the day room.
Page 1 of 3

2. Standard.
When reviewing defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the Court accepts as true all
allegations in the complaint. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). To avoid dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a
claim, a complaint must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader
is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). This requirement is satisfied if the complaint (1)
describes the claim in sufficient detail to give the defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the
grounds upon which it rests and (2) plausibly suggests that the plaintiff has a right to relief above a
speculative level. Bell Atl., 550 U.S. at 555; see Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009);
EEOC v. Concentra Health Servs., 496 F.3d 773, 776 (7th Cir. 2007). “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.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citing
Bell Atl., 550 U.S. at 556).
3. Analysis.
In her response to defendants’ motion, the plaintiff requests leave to amend her complaint and
voluntarily dismiss Counts III, IV, X - XII. Courts should freely give leave to amend when justice
so requires. Fed.R.Civ. P. 15(a)(2). In this early stage of litigation, the Court believes that the
most efficient resolution to some of the issues raised in the defendants’ motion to dismiss would be
to allow the plaintiff leave to amend her complaint thus making the defendants’ motion to dismiss
moot.
Once the amended complaint is filed, the defendants can again move to dismiss the amended
pleading, if appropriate. The defendants are reminded the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
Page 2 of 3

8(d)(1) allows a party to plead in the alternative and that if a party pleas in the alternative and either
pleading is sufficient, the pleading is sufficient and Rule 12 requires certain defenses to be asserted
in responsive pleading.
4. Conclusion.
Plaintiff is GRANTED leave to amend her complaint. The amended complaint is due on or
before January 23, 2017. Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 15(a)(3), the Defendants
are required to respond to the amended pleading “within the time remaining to respond to the
original pleading or within 14 days after service of the amended pleading, whichever is later.”
Defendants’ Motion (Doc. 19) to Dismiss is MOOT.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: 12/20/2016
s/J. Phil Gilbert
J. PHIL GILBERT
DISTRICT JUDGE

Page 3 of 3