Jordan v. Hall et al

Filing 27

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER re: 17 ORDERED that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (ECFNo. 17) is DENIED without prejudice. Signed by District Judge Jean C. Hamilton on 4/18/13. (CEL)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION

RONALD JORDAN,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff(s),
vs.
BRIAN D. HALL, et al.,
Defendant(s).

Case No. 4:12CV2070 JCH

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon Defendants Brian Hall, Joey Arcand, and Paul Johnson’s
(collectively “Defendants”) Motion to Dismiss, filed January 31, 2013. (ECF No. 17). Upon review
the Court finds that in preparing their motion, Defendants made little effort to discern and attack the
claims actually raised in Plaintiff’s Complaint. For example, Defendants persist in defending against
claims against them in their official capacities, despite the fact that Plaintiff clearly indicated he
intended to pursue only individual capacity claims. (See ECF No. 1-1). More disturbingly, based
on language in Plaintiff’s Complaint, Defendants insist Plaintiff’s claims consist solely of “cruel
and unusual punishment and I believe due process.” (See ECF No. 18, P. 1, quoting ECF No. 1, P.
2). In so doing, Defendants completely ignore Plaintiff’s claims of retaliation, which permeate his
Complaint. Even the most cursory reading of Plaintiff’s Complaint, however, reveals that his early
reference to cruel and unusual punishment and due process relates to a suit he filed with this Court
in the early 1990s. (See ECF No. 1, P. 2).1

1

The Court recognizes that Plaintiff checked a box indicating he had brought another civil action
based on the same facts involved in this action. (See ECF No. 1, P. 1). The description of the
suit reveals this to be an obvious mistake, as the earlier suit preceded the facts at issue here by
approximately twenty years. (See Id., P. 2).

Under these circumstances, the Court declines to address the narrow arguments raised in
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss at this time. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss will therefore be denied
without prejudice.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 17) is DENIED
without prejudice.

Dated this 18th day of April, 2013.

/s/Jean C. Hamilton
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-2-