Jenkins et al v. Correctional Medical Services, Inc. et al

Filing 29

ORDER provisionally denying 21 defendant Corizon Inc.'s motion for judgment on the pleadings and granting 28 plaintiffs' motion for leave to file an Amended Complaint on or before 11/30/11. Signed on 11/17/11 by Chief District Judge Fernando J. Gaitan, Jr. (Enss, Rhonda)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
CENTRAL DIVISION
R.D.J. A MINOR, BY NEXT FRIEND
LUCIANA RACHELLE JACKSON
D.D.J., A MINOR, BY NEXT FRIEND
RANIKA LASHAWN JENKINS AND
CHRISTINE DIXON
Plaintiffs,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
v.
)
)
CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL SERVICES,
)
INC., JOHN DOE, M.D., RICHARD ROE,
)
GARY GUARD, STEWART V. EPPS,
)
SAM SOE,
)
Defendants. )

Case No. 2:11-CV- 04123-FJG

ORDER
Currently pending before the Court is defendant Corizon, Inc. f/k/a Correctional
Medical Services, Inc.’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc. # 21) and plaintiffs’
Motion for Leave to File a First Amended Complaint (Doc. # 28).

Defendant Corizon

moves for Judgment on the Pleadings because it states that plaintiffs have brought a
wrongful death claim, a medical malpractice claim and a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim against
Corizon and the State of Missouri defendants. Defendant argues that plaintiffs’ claims
should be dismissed because plaintiffs have made no factual allegations against
Corizon, Inc. with the exception that Corizon is liable for the actions of two unidentified
and unserved parties, Dr. John Doe and Richard Roe. Defendant states that
respondeat superior cannot form the basis for liability under § 1983 and plaintiffs have
failed to allege an unconstitutional policy or custom on behalf of Corizon, Inc.
In response, plaintiffs state that they “have properly stated a cause of action for
state-based claim of Wrongful Death as against said Defendant and there is no
requirement that Wrongful Death claims made in Missouri comply with federal rules

relating to Section 1983 claims or Eighth Amendment claims.” (Plaintiffs’ Suggestions in
Opposition, p. 2). Plaintiffs also state that in order to prevail, they do not have to allege
a § 1983 claim or an Eighth Amendment claim against defendant Corizon, Inc. in order
to prevail. Plaintiffs have also file a Motion for Leave to File An Amended Complaint.
They state that they do not contemplate adding parties, but believe that they may be
able to identify some of the “John Doe” parties and also focus the issues related to
causation.
After reviewing plaintiffs’ response to the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings
and Count III of the Petition, the Court is unclear whether plaintiffs are still asserting a §
1983 claim against defendant Corizon, Inc. In Count III of their Petition, plaintiffs stated
that the claim was against “defendants in their official and individual capacities.” In light
of the fact that the Court on July 28, 2011, granted plaintiffs’ Motion to Dismiss the State
of Missouri, the Missouri Department of Corrections, Fulton Reception and Diagnostic
Center and Larry Crawford, the Court will allow plaintiffs an opportunity to file an
Amended Complaint which more clearly states which claims plaintiffs are asserting
against which defendants. Plaintiffs shall file their Amended Complaint on or before
November 30, 2011. Accordingly, defendant Corizon Inc.’s Motion for Judgment on the
Pleadings is hereby PROVISIONALLY DENIED (Doc. # 21) and plaintiffs’ Motion for
Leave to File an Amended Complaint is hereby GRANTED (Doc. # 28).

Date: November 17, 2011
Kansas City, Missouri

S/ FERNANDO J. GAITAN, JR.
Fernando J. Gaitan, Jr.
Chief United States District Judge

2