Watson v. Moore et al

Filing 42

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Haydens Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 27) is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Haydens Motion to Strike (ECF No. 38) is GRANTED in part, and DENIED in part.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 36) is STRICKEN. 38 (DOC. #37) 27 Signed by District Judge Jean C. Hamilton on 8/25/16. (CLA)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION

PIERRE WATSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNKNOWN MOORE, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 4:15-cv-01241-JCH

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Defendant Hayden’s Motion to Dismiss, filed on April
14, 2016. (ECF No. 27.) Also pending before the Court is Hayden’s Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s
Reply to Hayden’s Motion to Dismiss and Second Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 38.)
BACKGROUND
On August 13, 2015, Watson filed this civil rights action, naming as defendants in their
individual capacities several officials and nurses at the St. Louis County Justice Center
(hereinafter, the “SLCJC”), including Officer Hayden. (ECF No. 1.) Watson filed an amended
complaint on February 18, 2016. (ECF No. 15.) He asserts that all named defendants were
deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs, in violation of his Eighth Amendment
rights. As to Defendant Hayden, Watson alleges as follows.
On October 1, 2014, a nurse at the SLCJC administered Watson a topical treatment for a
rash on his body. In the presence of the SLCJC officials on duty at the time, the nurse instructed
Watson to leave the solution on for 10-12 hours, and cautioned him that the solution could not
stay on him for more than 12 hours. The nurse’s instructions were relayed to Hayden at the
beginning of Hayden’s shift. After the solution had remained on Watson for the requisite
1

amount of time, he requested that Hayden allow him to shower in order to rinse the solution off.
Hayden responded that he would speak to the Field Training Officer on duty regarding the
matter. Via the intercom system in his cell, Watson continued to request a shower to rinse the
solution off, which Hayden denied. After several hours, Hayden silenced Watson’s emergency
button so that he could not call out. Following the next shift change, and after the solution had
been on Watson for seven hours longer than it should have been, Watson was escorted to the
shower. He was subsequently evaluated by a nurse who observed that he had a bad reaction to
the medication and a terrible burn due to the solution being on longer than it should have been.
As mentioned above, on April 14, 2016, Hayden moved for dismissal of the amended
complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Hayden argues that Watson has
failed to state a claim because he “has merely ple[d] legal conclusions and other conclusory
statements rather than demonstrate a plausible claim for relief…” (ECF No. 27 at 1.) On August
19, 2016, Watson filed a Second Amended Complaint and a Reply to Hayden’s Motion to
Dismiss, which Hayden now moves to strike. (ECF Nos. 36-38.)
DISCUSSION
A. Motion to Dismiss
In ruling on a motion to dismiss, the Court must view the allegations in the complaint in
the light most favorable to the plaintiff. See Eckert v. Titan Tire Corp., 514 F.3d 801, 806 (8th
Cir. 2008).

The purpose of a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) is to test the legal

sufficiency of the complaint. Thus, the issue is not whether the plaintiff will ultimately prevail,
but instead is whether the plaintiff is entitled to present evidence in support of his claim. See
Fed. R. Civ. 12(b)(6); Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 554-556 (2007). A viable
complaint must contain “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”

2

Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. However, “the tenet that a court must accept as true all of the
allegations contained in a complaint is inapplicable to legal conclusions,” and “[t]hreadbare
recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not
suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
Upon consideration of the original and amended complaints, the Court finds that
Watson’s allegations against Hayden survive Hayden’s Motion to Dismiss. As stated above,
Watson alleges that Hayden failed to allow him to rinse the solution off in a timely manner, even
though Hayden had received medical instructions that the solution was not to remain on Watson
for longer than 12 hours. Construing Watson’s factual allegations as true, the Court finds that he
has plead sufficient factual content to state a plausible claim against Hayden for deliberate
indifference to Watson’s serious medical needs. See Langford v. Norris, 614 F.3d 445, 459-60
(8th Cir. 2010) (“It is well established that deliberate indifference to a prisoner’s serious medical
needs is cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment”; setting forth
elements of deliberate indifference claim); see also Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (factual allegations
must be enough to raise right to relief above speculative level); Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97,
104-105 (1976) (constitutional obligation to provide medical care to those in custody is violated
when officials intentionally delay access to medical treatment or intentionally interfere with
treatment once prescribed).

Therefore, Hayden’s Motion to Dismiss will be denied, and

Hayden’s Motion to Strike Watson’s Reply will be denied as moot.
B. Motion to Strike Second Amended Complaint
Hayden moves to strike Watson’s Second Amended Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 15(a), arguing that the amendment was filed beyond 21 days after the serving

3

of Hayden’s Motion to Dismiss, and that the Court has not granted Watson leave to file an
amended pleading.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) “governs the pretrial amendment of pleadings and
states that where an amendment is not sought ‘as a matter of course’—as defined by the Rule—
‘a party may amend its pleadings only with the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s
leave.’” See Sherman v. Winco Fireworks, Inc., 532 F.3d 709, 715 (8th Cir. 2008) (citing Fed.
R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2)).
Because Watson did not file a motion seeking leave of the Court before filing his Second
Amended Complaint, and because Watson’s original and amended complaints survive Hayden’s
Motion to Dismiss, the Court will strike the pleading in its entirety. Should Watson wish to
amend his pleadings in the future for the purpose of adding new defendants or claims, he is
advised that he must file a proper motion for leave to file an amended complaint, along with an
attached proposed amended complaint. See Clayton v. White Hall Sch. Dist., 778 F.2d 457, 460
(8th Cir. 1985) (“[I]n order to preserve the right to amend the complaint, a party must submit the
proposed amendment along with its motion”); see also Minneapolis Firefighters’ Relief Ass’n v.
MEMC Elec. Materials, Inc., 641 F.3d 1023, 1030 (8th Cir. 2011) (stating that sufficient motion
for leave to amend seeks leave to amend; attaches copy of proposed amended complaint; and
specifies additional allegations that would overcome motion to dismiss).
CONCLUSION
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Hayden’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 27)
is DENIED.

4

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Hayden’s Motion to Strike (ECF No. 38)
is GRANTED in part, and DENIED in part.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint (ECF No.
36) is STRICKEN.

Dated this 25th day of August, 2016.

/s/ Jean C. Hamilton
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5