Barr v. Pearson et al
Filing
36
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk shall issue process or cause process to be issued on the amended complaint [Doc. 34] as to all defendants in their individual capacities. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendants, in their indi vidual capacities, shall reply to the amended complaint within the time provided by the applicable provisions of Rule 12(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See 42 U.S.C. 1997e(g)(2). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's official-capac ity claims against all defendants are DISMISSED without prejudice. See 42 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to this Court=s differentiated case management system, this case is assigned to Track 5B (prisoner actions-standard). A separate Order of Partial Dismissal shall accompany this Memorandum and Order. Signed by District Judge Jean C. Hamilton on 6/20/16. (CSG)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION
TIMOTHY BARR,
Plaintiff,
v.
REBECCA PEARSON, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 1:15-CV-85-ACL
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on review of plaintiff=s amended complaint
[Doc. 34].
For the reasons stated below, the Court will dismiss plaintiff's
official-capacity claims against all defendants and order the Clerk of Court to issue
process on the amended complaint as to all defendants in their individual
capacities.
28 U.S.C. ' 1915(e)
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(e)(2)(B), the Court may dismiss a complaint
filed in forma pauperis if the action is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who
is immune from such relief.
either law or in fact.@
An action is frivolous if Ait lacks an arguable basis in
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 328 (1989).
1
An action
fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted if it does not plead Aenough
facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.@
Bell Atlantic Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). To determine whether an action fails to state
a claim upon which relief can be granted, the Court must engage in a two-step
inquiry.
First, the Court must identify the allegations in the complaint that are not
entitled to the assumption of truth. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1950-51
(2009).
These include Alegal conclusions@ and A[t]hreadbare recitals of the
elements of a cause of action [that are] supported by mere conclusory statements.@
Id. at 1949. Second, the Court must determine whether the complaint states a
plausible claim for relief.
Id. at 1950-51.
This is a Acontext-specific task that
requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense.@
Id. at 1950.
The plaintiff is required to plead facts that show more than the Amere
possibility of misconduct.@ Id. The Court must review the factual allegations in
the complaint Ato determine if they plausibly suggest an entitlement to relief.@ Id.
at 1951.
When faced with alternative explanations for the alleged misconduct,
the Court may exercise its judgment in determining whether plaintiff=s proffered
conclusion is the most plausible or whether it is more likely that no misconduct
occurred. Id. at 1950-52.
2
In reviewing a pro se complaint under ' 1915(e)(2)(B), the Court must give
the complaint the benefit of a liberal construction.
519, 520 (1972).
Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S.
The Court must also weigh all factual allegations in favor of the
plaintiff, unless the facts alleged are clearly baseless.
Denton v. Hernandez, 504
U.S. 25, 32-33 (1992).
The Amended Complaint
Plaintiff, an inmate at the Jefferson City Correctional Center brings this
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983 for the violation of his constitutional rights
during his incarceration at the Southeast Correctional Center (“SECC”).
Named
as defendants are the Missouri Department of Corrections and/or Corizon, Inc.,
employees Rebecca Pearson (Nurse), Dana Degens (Nurse), Brandi Juden (Nurse),
David Helman (Nurse), J. Cofield (Director of Operations), Mina Massey (Medical
Director), G. Babich (Medical Doctor), Kimberly Birch (Nurse), and Nina Hill
(Nurse).
Liberally construing the amended complaint, plaintiff is alleging that
defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs at SECC
following a diagnosis of multiple sclerosis.
More specifically, defendants
intentionally delayed and/or failed to provide necessary medical treatment for
plaintiff.
Plaintiff is suing defendants in both their individual and official
capacities.
3
Discussion
I.
Official Capacity Claims
Naming an SECC correctional officer or employee in his or her official
capacity is the equivalent of naming the entity that employs the official, in this case
the State of Missouri. See Will v. Michigan Dep=t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71
(1989). However, Aneither a State nor its officials acting in their official capacity
are >persons= under ' 1983.@ Id. Moreover, as to the defendant medical personnel
who may be employees of Corizon, Inc., the Court notes that “[a] corporation acting
under color of state law will be held liable only for its own unconstitutional
policies.” See Sanders v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 984 F.2d 972, 975-76 (8th Cir.
1993). Because plaintiff does not allege that any Corizon official policies or
customs were responsible for the alleged violation of his constitutional rights, the
complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted as to defendants in
their official capacities.
As such, the Court will dismiss, without prejudice,
plaintiff’s claims against all defendants in their official capacities.
II. Individual Capacity Claims
Plaintiff's 42 U.S.C. ' 1983 allegations against defendants in their individual
capacities state a claim for Eighth Amendment violations, and therefore, the Court
will order process on the amended complaint to issue against all named defendants.
4
In accordance with the foregoing,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk shall issue process or cause
process to be issued on the amended complaint [Doc. 34] as to all defendants in
their individual capacities.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendants, in their individual
capacities, shall reply to the amended complaint within the time provided by the
applicable provisions of Rule 12(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See
42 U.S.C. ' 1997e(g)(2).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's official-capacity claims
against all defendants are DISMISSED without prejudice.
See 42 U.S.C. '
1915(e)(2)(B).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to this Court=s differentiated
case management system, this case is assigned to Track 5B (prisoner
actions-standard).
A separate Order of Partial Dismissal shall accompany this Memorandum
and Order.
Dated this __20th_ day of __June__, 2016.
___________\s\ Jean C. Hamilton_______________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
5
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?