Hestdalen v. Corrizon Corrections Healthcare et al

Filing 177

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Trinidad Aguilera's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc. 87 ), is GRANTED. Signed by District Judge John A. Ross on 1/28/20. (JAB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION

DANNY D. HESTDALEN,
Plaintiff,
vs.
CORRIZON CORRECTIONS
HEALTHCARE, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 2:18-cv-00039-JAR

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Defendant Trinidad Aguilera’s Motion for Judgment
on the Pleadings. (Doc. 87.) Plaintiff advances two claims against Defendants: deliberate
indifference to his serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment and denial of
reasonable accommodations in violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act (“ADA”). (Doc.
53.)

In his response to Aguilera’s motion, Plaintiff concedes that “Dr. Aguilera’s

involvement . . . is limited to the ADA violation,” specifically his “denial of a second hearing aid
and proper tubing.” (Doc. 93 at 1, 2.)
Aguilera argues that Plaintiff never “provide[s] any factual support for this allegation.”
(Doc. 88 at 6.) He asserts that “Plaintiff has not even alleged that Dr. Aguilera knew that
Plaintiff needed two hearing aids instead of one hearing aid.” (Id. at 6-7.) Plaintiff replies that
“Dr. Aguilera’s knowledge of the need for 2 hearing aids was provided in Plaintiff’s grievances
in detail.” (Doc. 93 at 2.)
A motion for judgment on the pleadings under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c) is governed by the
same standard used to address a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule
1

12(b)(6).

Clemmons v. Crawford, 585 F.3d 1119, 1124 (8th Cir. 2009) (internal citation

omitted). The Court accepts as true all facts pleaded by the nonmoving party and grants all
reasonable inferences from the pleadings in favor of the nonmoving party.

Id.

“When

considering a motion for judgment on the pleadings . . . the court generally must ignore materials
outside the pleadings . . .” Porous Media Corp. v. Pall Corp., 186 F.3d 1077, 1079 (8th Cir.
1999). Similar to summary judgment, a judgment on the pleadings is appropriate “where no
material issue of fact remains to be resolved and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of
law.” Id. (quoting Faibisch v. University of Minnesota, 304 F.3d 797, 803 (8th Cir. 2002)).
The Court agrees with Aguilera. A review of Plaintiff’s complaint shows a lack of any
factual basis to conclude that Aguilera denied Plaintiff reasonable accommodations as required
under the ADA. Allegations in Plaintiff’s grievances are insufficient to remedy that defect.
Porous Media, 186 F.3d at 1079. To the contrary, Plaintiff describes a concerned and focused
course of treatment by Aguilera. In short, Plaintiff has failed to assert facts that could support a
plausible ADA claim against Aguilera.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Trinidad Aguilera’s Motion for Judgment
on the Pleadings (Doc. 87), is GRANTED.

Dated this 24th Day of January, 2020.

________________________________
JOHN A. ROSS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2