MAUL-BEY v. BRUBAKER et al

Filing 28

ENTRY - There is no plausible claim asserted against Corizon and for this reason Corizon's motion to dismiss [dkt 16 ] is granted. No final judgment shall issue at this time as to the claim dismissed in this Entry. Signed by Judge Sarah Evans Barker on 3/14/2014. Copy Mailed. (JD)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION

ENGAI MAUL-BEY,
Plaintiff,
vs.
JANE BRUBAKER, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:13-cv-75-SEB-DKL

Entry Granting Motion to Dismiss of Defendant Corizon
For the reasons explained in this Entry, the motion to dismiss discussed herein must be
granted.
Background
One of several defendants in this civil rights action brought by Engai Maul-Bey is
Corizon, Inc. (“Corizon”). At the time pertinent to Maul-Bey’s claim, Corizon has been the
contract medical provider at the Pendleton Correctional Facility (“Pendleton”), a prison operated
by the Indiana Department of Correction.
Corizon challenges the sufficiency of Maul-Bey’s complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Hallinan v. Fraternal Order of Police Chicago Lodge
No. 7, 570 F.3d 811, 820 (7th Cir. 2009). “[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter,
accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556
U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (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
at 667. The court undertakes this context-specific inquiry, drawing on its experience and
common sense for guidance. Cooney v. Rossiter, 583 F.3d 967, 971 (7th Cir. 2009).
Pro se complaints such as that filed by Maul-Bey are construed liberally and held to a less
stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. Obriecht v. Raemisch, 517 F.3d 489,
491 n.2 (7th Cir. 2008). Liberal construction means that if the court can reasonably read the
pleadings to state a valid claim on which the party could prevail, it should do so; however, a
district court may not rewrite a motion to include claims that were never presented, see Barnett v.
Hargett, 174 F.3d 1128 (10th Cir. 1999), construct the party's legal arguments for him, see Small
v. Endicott, 998 F.2d 411 (7th Cir. 1993), or “conjure up questions never squarely presented” to
the court, Beaudett v. City of Hampton, 775 F.2d 1274, 1278 (4th Cir. 1985).
Discussion
“A complaint is subject to dismissal for failure to state a claim if the allegations, taken as
true, show that plaintiff is not entitled to relief.” Jones v. Bock, 127 S. Ct. 910, 921 (2007). This
can mean either that the complaint is insufficient “based on the lack of a cognizable legal theory
or the absence of sufficient facts alleged under a cognizable legal theory.” Balistreri v. Pacifica
Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).
Maul-Bey was confined for a period of time at Pendleton. At the time he was confined at
that institution, the State of Indiana had contracted with Corizon for Corizon to provide medical
services to inmates at Pendleton and other prisons. Maul-Bey alleges that medical personnel
employed by Corizon failed to deliver constitutionally adequate medical care while he was
confined at Pendleton.

Maul-Bey’s claim is asserted pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court has jurisdiction
over that claim through 28 U.S.C. § 1331. This explains the removal of the case from an Indiana
state court. In order for a private employer such as Corizon to be liable for the type of Eighth
Amendment claim Maul-Bey presents, there must be a plausible allegation that the entity has a
custom or policy of denying inmates adequate medical care under the Eighth Amendment.
Shields v. Illinois Department of Corrections, Slip op. Nos. 12-2746 and 13-1143 (7th Cir.
March 12, 2013)(citing cases, including Rodriguez v. Plymouth Ambulance Serv., 577 F.3d 816,
828 (7th Cir. 2009)).
In this case, Maul-Bey’s complaint contains no such allegation.. There is no plausible
claim asserted against Corizon and for this reason Corizon’s motion to dismiss [dkt 16] is
granted.
No final judgment shall issue at this time as to the claim dismissed in this Entry.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

03/14/2014
Date:_____________
_______________________________
SARAH EVANS BARKER, JUDGE
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana

Distribution:
All Electronically Registered Counsel
ENGAI MAUL-BEY 902647
PENDLETON CORRECTIONAL FACILITY
Inmate Mail/Parcels
4490 West Reformatory Road
PENDLETON, IN 46064