Duffy v. DOC Mental Health Dept.

Filing 35

ORDER granting 33 Motion for copy of mental health records; granting 23 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by U.S. District Judge Karen E. Schreier on 1/2/2014. (KC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
SHAWN A. DUFFY,
Plaintiff,
vs.
SOUTH DAKOTA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS MENTAL HEALTH
DEPARTMENT; and
DR. DAVIDSON,
Mental Health Physician,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIV. 13-4072-KES

ORDER DISMISSING
SDDOCMHD

Defendant South Dakota Department of Corrections Mental Health
Department (SDDOCMHD) moves to dismiss the complaint against it for
failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to Rule
12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff, Shawn A. Duffy’s,
response to the motion does not address the issue of whether SDDOCMHD
can be sued as a defendant under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court grants the
motion to dismiss
Duffy also moves for a copy of his mental health records from outside
physicians–namely “Northeastern Mental Health,” “Partners in Psychiatry,”
and any other records that are not from Dr. Davidson. Because these records
may contain information relevant to Duffy’s claim, he is entitled to receive a

copy of the records. If either defendant is in possession of such records, they
should provide a copy to Duffy.
The Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution bars suit for
money damages and injunctive relief when a state agency, as opposed to a
state official, is named as a defendant in a lawsuit and the state agency has
not consented to the lawsuit. Alabama v. Pugh, 438 U.S. 781, 782 (1978)
(“There can be no doubt, however, that suit against the State and its Board of
Corrections is barred by the Eleventh Amendment, unless [the state agency]
has consented to the filing of such a suit.”); see also Monroe v. Ark. State Univ.,
495 F.3d 591, 593-94 (8th Cir. 2007) (§ 1983 suit against state university
seeking injunction and damages ordered dismissed) and Murphy v. State of
Arkansas, 127 F.3d 750, 754 (8th Cir. 1997) (“it is well settled that the
Eleventh Amendment bars § 1983 claims against the state and its agencies.”).
Additionally, a state agency is not a proper party under § 1983 because
it is not a “person” within the meaning of the statute. By its very terms, § 1983
only applies to “persons.” It is “well settled that state agencies are not
‘persons’ for purposes of § 1983.” Mills v. Iowa Board of Regents, 770 F. Supp.
2d 986, 992 (D. Iowa 2011) (citing Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S.
58, 63-71 (1989). In Will, the Supreme Court held that “neither a state nor its
officials acting in their official capacities are ‘persons’ under § 1983.” Id. at 71.
Thus, the claims against SDDOCMHD for both monetary and injunctive
relief are dismissed because a suit brought against a state agency is barred by
2

the Eleventh Amendment and because a state agency is not a “person” within
the meaning of § 1983. It is
ORDERED that Duffy’s motion to obtain a copy of his mental health
records (Docket 33) is granted to the extent the records are in the possession
of either SDDOCMHD or Dr. Davidson.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that SDDOCMHD’s motion to dismiss
(Docket 23) is granted after it discloses the mental health records described
above to Duffy.
Dated January 2, 2014.
BY THE COURT:

/s/ Karen E. Schreier
KAREN E. SCHREIER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3