Walker et al v. Corizon Health, Inc. et al

Filing 130

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part 41 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, on or before February 21, 2020, the parties are directed to contact Magistrate Judge Kenneth G. Gale about implementing a revised scheduling order to govern the case after the Tenth Circuit's remand. The Stay imposed on May 20, 2019 is lifted. Signed by District Judge Daniel D. Crabtree on 2/11/2020. See order for additional details. (ydm)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
SHERMAINE WALKER, individually
and as administrator of the estate of
Marques Davis, deceased, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Case No. 17-2601-DDC-KGG
CORIZON HEALTH, INC., formerly
known as Correctional Medical
Services, et al.,
Defendants.
___________________________________
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Consistent with the mandate of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
in Case Number 19-3070 (Doc. 128),1 the court reverses the portion of its Order (Doc. 100) that
denied defendant Sohaib Mohiuddin, M.D.’s Motion to Dismiss plaintiff’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983
claim (Count IV) for failing to state a plausible deliberate indifference claim to defeat Dr.
Mohiuddin’s qualified immunity defense. Following the Tenth Circuit’s guidance, the court
holds that “the conclusory and nonspecific allegations set out in the complaint” fail to state “a
viable Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim against [Dr. Mohiuddin]” to “overcome
an assertion of qualified immunity at the motion-to-dismiss stage.” Walker v. Mohiuddin, __
F.3d __, No. 19-3070, 2020 WL 242420, at *3, *4 (10th Cir. Jan. 14, 2020). The court thus
dismisses the § 1983 claim (Count IV) against Dr. Mohiuddin under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6) for failing to state a claim.

1
On May 20, 2019, the court stayed the case pending the appeal to the Tenth Circuit. Doc. 123.
To the extent the Tenth Circuit’s mandate did not already lift the stay, the court lifts it by this Order.

But, Dr. Mohiuddin remains a defendant in the case. The court denied Dr. Mohiuddin’s
motion to dismiss the other claims asserted against him—i.e., Count V (negligence/wrongful
death) and Count VI (negligence/survival claim). See Doc. 100 at 14–15, 22–24 (denying
motion to dismiss plaintiff I.D.F.’s wrongful death claim (Count V) and denying motion to
dismiss both plaintiffs’ survival claim (Count IV)). These rulings were not at issue in the appeal
to the Tenth Circuit. See generally Walker, 2020 WL 242420. And, Dr. Mohiuddin’s qualified
immunity defense does not apply to these claims because he asserts them under state law. See
Eidson v. Owens, 515 F.3d 1139, 1145 (10th Cir. 2008) (holding that “[q]ualified immunity does
not, however, apply to the [plaintiff’s] malpractice claim” because “qualified immunity ‘protects
an official from liability under federal causes of action but is not generally understood to protect
officials from claims based on state law’” (quoting Jenkins v. City of New York, 478 F.3d 76, 86
(2d Cir. 2007)); see also P.S. ex rel. Nelson v. The Farm, Inc., 658 F. Supp. 2d 1281, 1294 (D.
Kan. 2009) (noting that “under the governing Tenth Circuit law, qualified immunity does not
apply to claims asserted under state law”).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE COURT THAT defendant Sohaib
Mohiuddin, M.D.’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 41) is granted in part under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6) for failing to state a viable § 1983 claim in Count IV claim.2 The motion also
is denied in part to the extent it seeks to dismiss the state law claims asserted against Dr.
Mohiuddin in Counts V and VI, for the reasons explained in the court’s previous Order (Doc.
100).

2
When Dr. Mohiuddin moved to dismiss the Complaint, plaintiff never asked to amend to
supplement his § 1983 allegations against Dr. Mohiuddin. No such motion is pending now, so this Order
does not consider whether the Circuit’s holding would permit plaintiff to cure his pleading deficiencies
with an amended pleading.

2

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, on or before February 21, 2020, the parties are
directed to contact Magistrate Judge Kenneth G. Gale about implementing a revised scheduling
order to govern the case after the Tenth Circuit’s remand.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT the stay imposed on May 20, 2019 is lifted.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 11th day of February, 2020, at Kansas City, Kansas.
s/ Daniel D. Crabtree
Daniel D. Crabtree
United States District Judge

3