Cross v. MHM Correctional Services, Inc. et al

Filing 36

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. #14) is denied without prejudice. Denying 14 Motion to Dismiss Case. Signed by Magistrate Judge Frederick R. Buckles on 9/17/2012. (NCL)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
CHRISTOPHER CROSS, Legal Guardian, )
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
MHM CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, INC.,
)
et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)

No.

4:11CV1544 FRB

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Presently pending before the Court is defendants’ Motion to
Dismiss (Doc. #14).

All matters are pending before the undersigned

United States Magistrate Judge, with consent of the parties, pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
Plaintiff Christopher Cross brings this cause of action,
pro se, alleging that, as the legal guardian of Missouri state
prisoner Eldon Eugene Flaherty, he has been deprived of his legal
rights and responsibilities in relation to his guardianship of Mr.
Flaherty through defendants’ unlawful and unconstitutional conduct
which has resulted in plaintiff’s inability to act in the best
interest of Mr. Flaherty as legally required. Plaintiff’s assertions
of unlawful conduct include additional allegations that defendants’
actions have resulted in Mr. Flaherty being denied access to care for
his serious medical needs, being denied access to legally mandated
mental health counseling, being deprived of due process in his
probation proceedings, and being deprived of due process in relation
to the denial of his participation in the sex offender program.

Plaintiff’s four-count First Amended Complaint asserts claims of
deliberate indifference to employee training; deliberate indifference
to serious medical/mental health needs; deliberate indifference to
rights, liberties and privileges; and retaliation, intimidation,
interference, and harassment.

Plaintiff brings his claims pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983; the Americans With Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C.
§§ 12131, et seq.; the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 794, et seq.;
and various provisions of Missouri state law.

Plaintiff seeks

monetary relief, including punitive damages, as well as declaratory
and injunctive relief.
Defendants move to dismiss the First Amended Complaint and
have filed a “Memorandum of Law in Support” of the motion.

Notably,

however, defendants fail to provide any legal basis, either in their
motion or memorandum, upon which they contend plaintiff’s complaint
is subject to dismissal.

Nor to defendants provide any citation to

authority supporting such dismissal. Rule 4.01(A) of the Local Rules
of this Court provides: “Unless otherwise directed by the Court, the
moving party shall file with each motion a memorandum in support of
the motion, including any relevant argument and citations to any
authorities on which the party relies.”

(Emphasis added.)

Although

captioned as a “Memorandum of Law,” no law appears in defendants’
memorandum.

The

memorandum

is

completely

devoid

of

any

legal

authority, including any authority identifying the standard to be
applied in determining the motion or authority establishing the
defendants’ right to the relief requested. In such circumstances, it
-2-

is within the Court’s authority to deny such a motion for failure to
submit an adequate memorandum in support, including citation to legal
Smith v. Planned Parenthood of St. Louis Region, 327 F.

authority.

Supp. 2d 1016, 1021 (E.D. Mo. 2004).
“The Court’s role is to impartially interpret and apply the
law

when

parties

have

a

dispute.

Before

the

dispute

can

be

addressed, the issue must be properly framed for adjudication.”
McCall v. Volpe, No. 4:10CV00244 JMM, 2010 WL 2025396, at *1 (E.D.
Ark. May 19, 2010).

It is not the role of the Court to assist a

party in litigating their case.

Id.

The defendants here have

provided no legal basis or authority upon which this Court may
dismiss plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint.

As such, defendants’

motion to dismiss is not properly framed for adjudication.

Nor is it

the role of the Court in this fee-paid, non-prisoner litigation to
independently search the record to discern a basis upon which to
dismiss the complaint.
Therefore, for all of the foregoing reasons,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendants’ Motion to Dismiss
(Doc. #14) is denied without prejudice.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Dated this

17th

day of September, 2012.

-3-