H. et al v. St. Louis County, Missouri et al
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion of defendant St. Louis County to dismiss Counts II and IV of plaintiffs first amended complaint [Doc. # 52 ] is granted. An order of partial dismissal will accompany this Memorandum and Order. Signed by District Judge Carol E. Jackson on 12/9/15. (JAB)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
A.H., et al.,
ST. LOUIS COUNTY, MISSOURI, et al.,
Case No. 4:14-CV-2069 (CEJ)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the motion of defendant St. Louis County to
dismiss Counts II and IV of plaintiffs’ first amended complaint pursuant to Rule
12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Plaintiffs have responded in
Plaintiffs’ decedent, Jereme M. Hartwig, was incarcerated in the St. Louis
County Jail where he committed suicide.
Plaintiffs are the decedent’s children and
In the first amended complaint, plaintiffs assert claims against defendants
St. Louis County, psychiatrist Wendy Magnoli, corrections officer Lauren Abate, and
Herbert Bernsen, the director of the St. Louis County Department of Justice Services.
Plaintiffs allege violations of Mr. Hartwig’s civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the
Fourteenth Amendment (Counts I, III, and IV), disability discrimination under the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 701, et seq. and Title II of the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq. (Count II), and a supplemental state
law claim of wrongful death (Count V).
The purpose of a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) is to test the legal
sufficiency of the complaint.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
The factual allegations of a
complaint are assumed true and construed in favor of the plaintiff, “even if it strikes a
savvy judge that actual proof of those facts is improbable.”
Bell Atlantic Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 556 (2007) (citing Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S.
506, 508 n.1 (2002)); Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989) (“Rule 12(b)(6)
does not countenance . . . dismissals based on a judge’s disbelief of a complaint’s
factual allegations.”); Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974) (stating that a
well-pleaded complaint may proceed even if it appears “that a recovery is very remote
The issue is not whether the plaintiff will ultimately prevail, but
whether the plaintiff is entitled to present evidence in support of his claim.
416 U.S. at 236.
A viable complaint must include “enough facts to state a claim to
relief that is plausible on its face.”
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570; see id. at 563 (stating
that the “no set of facts” language in Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45–46 (1957),
“has earned its retirement”); see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678–84 (2009)
(holding that the pleading standard set forth in Twombly applies to all civil actions).
“Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555.
A. Count II:
ADA and Rehabilitation Act Claim
Defendant St. Louis County argues that Count II should be dismissed for the
same reason the Court dismissed this claim from the original complaint—lack of
In its earlier order, the Court noted that even though Mr. Hartwig’s claim
of disability discrimination survived his death, plaintiffs were not bringing the claim as
- 2 -
personal representatives, trustees, administrators, or otherwise on behalf of the
Thus, the plaintiffs did not have standing to assert the claim.
“The doctrine of standing . . . requires federal courts to satisfy themselves that
‘the plaintiff[s] ha[ve] alleged such a personal stake in the outcome of the
controversy as to warrant [their] invocation of federal-court jurisdiction.’”
v. Earth Island Inst., 555 U.S. 488, 493 (2009) (quoting Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S.
490, 498 (1975)).
To satisfy Article III’s standing requirements, “a plaintiff must
show (1) it has suffered an ‘injury in fact’ that is (a) concrete and particularized and
(b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical; (2) the injury is fairly
traceable to the challenged action of the defendant; and (3) it is likely, as opposed to
merely speculative, that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision.”
Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs. (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 180–81
(2000) (citing Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560–61 (1992)).
invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing the elements of
Lujan, 504 U.S. at 561.
Plaintiffs A.H., B.H., and Caitlin Dickerson assert that, with the filing of the
amended complaint, they concurrently filed a petition for determination of heirship in
Missouri state court pursuant to section 473.663 of the Missouri Revised Statutes and
thus are now bringing Count II as the heirs of Mr. Hartwig’s estate.
473.663.1 provides that if no estate has been opened and no will has been presented
for probate within one year after a decedent’s death, then any person claiming an
interest in the decedent’s property may file a petition to determine the heirs of the
decedent and their respective interests as heirs in the estate.
- 3 -
Plaintiffs rely upon Heidbreder v. Tambke, 284 S.W.3d 740, 742–46 (Mo. Ct.
App. 2009) in support of their claim of standing.
In Heidbreder, the Missouri Court of
Appeals clarified that section 473.663 provides a decedent’s judicially determined
heirs the right to pursue the deceased’s legal claims as the rightful owners of his or
her unexpired causes of action.
However, here, unlike in Heidbreder, plaintiffs do not
allege that they in fact have been judicially determined to be the heirs of decedent’s
estate and therefore are entitled to recover for any claims that survived Mr. Hartwig’s
Instead, they only allege they have filed a pending petition for determination
of heirship pursuant to section 473.663 in state court.
“Because standing is
determined as of the lawsuit’s commencement, [the court] consider[s] the facts as
they existed at that time.”
Steger v. Franco, Inc., 228 F.3d 889, 892 (8th Cir. 2000);
see City of Clarkson Valley v. Mineta, 495 F.3d 567, 570 (8th Cir. 2007) (“[W]hen a
motion to dismiss is made on standing grounds the standing inquiry must . . . be done
in light of the factual allegations of the pleadings.”); see also Perry v. Village of
Arlington Heights, 186 F.3d 826, 830 (7th Cir. 1999) (“[I]t is not enough for [the
plaintiff] to attempt to satisfy the requirements of standing as the case progresses.
The requirements of standing must be satisfied from the outset.”).
provides no support for plaintiffs A.H., B.H., and Caitlin Dickerson to bring this claim,
as they have not been judicially determined to be the decedent’s heirs.
As such, the
Court finds that plaintiffs have not sufficiently alleged a basis for their standing to
assert this claim on decedent’s behalf.
Thus, Count II will be dismissed for failure to
state a claim.
B. Count IV:
Respondeat Superior Liability Under § 1983
- 4 -
In Count IV, plaintiffs seek to hold defendant St. Louis County liable for the
alleged constitutional violations based on the theory of respondeat superior.
Although the Supreme Court has “held that a municipality is a ‘person’ that can be
liable under § 1983,” it is well established “that a municipality cannot be held liable on
a respondeat superior theory, that is, solely because it employs a tortfeasor.”
v. City of Brooklyn Park, Minn., 486 F.3d 385, 389 (8th Cir. 2007) (citing Monell v.
Dep’t of Soc. Servs. of New York, 436 U.S. 658, 690–91 (1978)).
acknowledge that their respondeat superior claim against St. Louis County cannot be
sustained under controlling law.
Therefore, Count IV also will be dismissed.
For the reasons set forth above,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion of defendant St. Louis County to
dismiss Counts II and IV of plaintiffs’ first amended complaint [Doc. #52] is granted.
An order of partial dismissal will accompany this Memorandum and Order.
CAROL E. JACKSON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 9th day of December, 2015.
- 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?