Ruffin v. Sachse et al
Filing
66
OPINION MEMORANDUM AND ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Missouri Eastern Correctional Center's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint, [Doc. No. 50] is granted. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Missouri Eastern Correctional Center is dismissed from this action. 50 Signed by Honorable Henry E. Autrey on 3/2/12. (CLA)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
RICHARD RUFFIN,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
JENNIFER SACHS, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 4:10CV589 HEA
OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Defendant Missouri Eastern Correctional
Center's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint, [Doc. No. 50].
Plaintiff opposes the Motion. For the reasons set forth below, the Motion is
granted.
Facts and Background1
Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint is brought for alleged violations of
Plaintiff's rights pursuant to the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the
Americans with Disabilities Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq., (ADA),
and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 794,
(Section 504). With regard to the Missouri Eastern Correctional Center, (MECC),
1
The facts set out herein are for the purposes of this motion. This recitation of facts in
no way relieves the parties of the necessary proof of the facts in later proceedings.
and the Missouri Department of Corrections, (MDOC), the First Amended
Complaint specifically alleges that the policies, practices and acts of the Missouri
Eastern Correctional Center and the Missouri Department of Corrections violated
Plaintiff's rights under the ADA and Section 504.
As alleged in the First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff is severely visually
disabled and requires the assistance of auxiliary aids to perform basic tasks. While
incarcerated under the control of other correctional facilities in the State of
Missouri, Plaintiff was provided various accommodations and modifications of the
facilities policies, practices and procedures to accommodate his disability. Upon
being placed under the control of MECC, MECC allegedly denied similar
accommodations and refused to modify its policies, practices and procedures to
accommodate Plaintiff's disability. Plaintiff claims that the denial of
accommodations prevented him from participating in programs and services that
were available to other inmates under the control of MECC.
Discussion
Standard of Review
When ruling on a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, the Court
must take as true the alleged facts and determine whether they are sufficient to
raise more than a speculative right to relief. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
-2-
544, 555-56 (2007). The Court does not, however, accept as true any allegation
that is a legal conclusion. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949-50 (2009). The
complaint must have “‘a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the
[plaintiff] is entitled to relief,’ in order to ‘give the defendant fair notice of what
the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555
(quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2)) and then Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957),
abrogated by Twombly, supra); see also Gregory v. Dillard’s Inc., 565 F.3d 464,
473 (8th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 130 S.Ct. 628 (2009). While detailed factual
allegations are not necessary, a complaint that contains “labels and conclusions,”
and “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action” is not sufficient.
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555; accord Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949. The complaint must
set forth “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570; accord Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949; C.N. v. Willmar Pub.
Sch., Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 347, 591 F.3d 624, 629-30 (8th Cir.2010); Zutz v.
Nelson, 601 F.3d 842, 848 (8th Cir. 2010); Braden v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 588
F.3d 585, 594 (8th Cir. 2009). “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, 129 S.Ct. at 1949. If
the claims are only conceivable, not plausible, the complaint must be dismissed.
-3-
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570; accord Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1950. In considering a
motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), “the complaint should be read as
a whole, not parsed piece by piece to determine whether each allegation, in
isolation, is plausible.” Braden, 588 F.3d at 594. The issue in considering such a
motion is not whether the plaintiff will ultimately prevail, but whether the plaintiff
is entitled to present evidence in support of the claim. See Neitzke v. Williams, 490
U.S. 319, 327 (1989).
Defendant MECC moves to dismiss the Complaint against it because it is
not an entity subject to suit. Defendant argues that it is merely a prison operated by
Defendant Missouri Department. of Correction, and therefore not an entity in and
of itself. The Court agrees. The First Amended Complaint is legally deficient as
to Defendant Missouri Eastern Correctional Center, because jails are not suable
entities. See Marsden v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 856 F.Supp. 832, 836 (S.D. N.Y.
1994)(jails are not entities amenable to suit); Ketchum v. City of West Memphis,
Ark., 974 F.2d 81, 82 (8th Cir.1992) (departments or subdivisions of local
government are “not juridical entities suable as such”); Dean v. Barber, 951 F.2d
1210, 1214–15 (11th Cir.1992)(“[s]heriff's departments and police departments are
not usually considered legal entities subject to suit”); McCoy v. Chesapeake
Correctional Center, 788 F.Supp. 890 (E.D.Va.1992)(local jails are not “persons”
-4-
under § 1983).
Conclusion
Based upon the foregoing, Defendant Missouri Eastern Correctional
Center's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint is well taken and
will be granted.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Missouri Eastern Correctional
Center's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint, [Doc. No. 50] is
granted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Missouri Eastern
Correctional Center is dismissed from this action.
Dated this 2nd day of March, 2012.
HENRY EDWARD AUTREY
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?