Fultz v. Indiana State of et al

Filing 62

OPINION AND ORDER The court GRANTS Corizon's motion for judgment on the pleadings only with respect to the plaintiff's claim under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act 54 . Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 11/15/18.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION
MICHAEL FULTZ,

Plaintiff
v.

CASE NO.: 3:17-CV-628-RLM-MGG

STATE OF INDIANA, et al.,
Defendants
OPINION AND ORDER
Michael Fultz sues the State of Indiana, Corizon LLC, and Officer
Shelby, contending that rather than treat his mental illness and suicidal
tendencies, they placed him in segregation. The complaint alleges that
Corizon is a for-profit corporation that once had a contract with the State
to provide mental health services to Indiana’s prison inmates. Corizon
has moved for judgment on the pleadings with respect to Mr. Fultz’s
claim against it under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active
Labor Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1395dd(d)(2)(A), which only applies to a hospital
that operates an emergency department or has contracted with United
States to provide Medicare services.
To survive a motion for judgment on the
pleadings, a complaint must state a claim to
relief that is plausible on its face. When
assessing the facial plausibility of a claim, we
draw all reasonable inferences and facts in favor
of the non-movant, but need not accept as true
any legal assertions. At the Rule 12 motion
stage, a plaintiff must support an allegation …
with subsidiary facts, not just [b]are assertions

of the state of mind. Plaintiffs fail to state a
claim of bad faith when their complaint contains
nothing but conclusory labels, such as that
union officials had acted invidiously or
intentional[ly], willful[ly], wanton[ly], and
malicious[ly]. We have noted that a plaintiff’s
complaint might pass muster if it offer[s] facts
that suggest a motive for the union’s alleged
bad-faith conduct.
Bishop v. Air Line Pilots Ass’n, Int’l, 900 F.3d 388, 397 (7th Cir. 2018)
(citations and quotation marks omitted).
Mr. Fultz contends that by arguing that it isn’t a hospital, Corizon
is presenting evidence that is not in the record. The court disagrees. To
survive a motion for judgment on the pleadings, a plaintiff must be able
to point to something in the record that indicates the plaintiff could meet
its burden of proof at trial. The complaint doesn’t allege even in a
conclusory way that Corizon is a hospital or operates a hospital, which
Mr. Fultz would have to prove at trial. Accordingly, the court GRANTS
Corizon’s motion for judgment on the pleadings only with respect to the
plaintiff’s claim under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active
Labor Act [Doc. No. 54].
SO ORDERED.
ENTERED:

November 15, 2018
/s/ Robert L. Miller, Jr.
Judge, United States District Court

2