Sedlmeier v. South Dakota State Penitentiary Health Services et al
Filing
62
ORDER granting 46 Motion to Dismiss; denying as moot 58 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. Signed by U.S. District Judge Karen E. Schreier on 8/6/2015. (KC)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
MICHAEL SEDLMEIER,
4:13-CV-04136-KES
Plaintiff,
vs.
DENNIS KAEMINGK, Secretary of
Corrections;
BOB DOOLEY, Warden of Operations;
DARRIN YOUNG, SDSP Warden;
SHERRY MATUSIAK, SDSP Medical
Nurse;
JESSICA SCHREURS, Supervisor of
Nurses;
HEATHER BOWERS, Charge Nurse;
and SDSP MEDICAL STAFF,
ORDER GRANTING MOTION
TO DISMISS SECOND
AMENDED COMPLAINT
Defendants.
Plaintiff, Michael Sedlmeier, filed this lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. Defendants, Dennis Kaemingk, Bob Dooley, Darrin Young, Sherry
Matusiak, Jessica Schreurs, Heather Bowers, and the South Dakota State
Penitentiary (SDSP) Medical Staff, are all employees of SDSP. All defendants
move to dismiss the claims against them for failure to state a claim. For the
following reasons, defendants’ motion is granted.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Sedlmeier is a current inmate at SDSP. On November 25, 2013,
Sedlmeier filed a complaint in this court alleging that defendants SDSP Health
Services and Darrin Young violated his civil rights. Sedlmeier complained that
prison staff denied him prompt and adequate medical care. Docket 1. In
response, defendants moved to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.
P. 12(b)(6). Docket 14. The motion to dismiss was granted, but Sedlmeier was
granted leave to amend his complaint to add Matusiak as a defendant. Docket
25. Sedlmeier filed a motion to amend his complaint (Docket 26), which was
granted. Docket 27. On September 24, 2014, Sedlmeier filed a document titled,
“Motion to Amend Complaint,” which identified Matusiak, Schreurs, and
Bowers as defendants. Docket 35. The court construed this to be an amended
complaint. Defendants answered, alleging that Sedlmeier failed to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted. Docket 36.
On January 16, 2015, defendants Matusiak, Bowers, and Schreurs
moved to dismiss1 the amended complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
Docket 46. Defendants argued that because the complaint did not indicate
whether defendants were being sued in their individual or official capacities,
the case law would conclude that they are being sued only in their official
capacities. Defendants also argued that damages are not recoverable from state
officials sued in their official capacities because they are not “persons” for
purposes of § 1983. Sedlmeier then asked for and was granted relief to file a
second amended complaint. Docket 54. The second amended complaint was
filed on June 4, 2015, which listed Kaemingk, Dooley, Young, Matusiak,
Schreurs, Bowers, and the SDSP Medical Staff as defendants. Docket 56.
Because Sedlmeier subsequently filed a second amended complaint,
defendants Matusiak, Bowers, and Schreurs’ motion to dismiss is moot. See
Pure Country, Inc. v. Sigma Chi Fraternity, 312 F.3d 952, 956 (8th Cir. 2002).
1
2
All defendants responded by moving to dismiss the action for failing to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Docket 58. Sedlmeier
responded to this motion (Docket 59), and defendants replied to his response.
Docket 60. For the reasons stated below, defendants’ motion is granted.
LEGAL STANDARD
Rule 12(b)(6) provides for dismissal of a claim if the claimant has failed to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6); United
States v. Harvey, No. Civ. 13-4023, 2014 WL 2455533, at *1 (D.S.D. Jun. 2,
2014). “To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient
factual matter, accepted as true, ‘to state a claim to relief that is plausible on
its face.’ ” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). The court considers only the
materials in the pleadings and exhibits attached to the complaint, drawing on
experience and common sense and viewing plaintiff’s claim as a whole. Whitney
v. Guys, Inc., 700 F.3d 1118, 1128 (8th Cir. 2012) (quoting Mattes v. ABC
Plastics, Inc., 323 F.3d 695, 697 n.4 (8th Cir. 2003)). Pro se complaints,
“ ‘however inartfully pleaded,’ [are] held to ‘less stringent standards than formal
pleadings drafted by lawyers.’ ” Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976)
(quoting Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972)).
DISCUSSION
In their motion to dismiss, defendants argue that they are not “persons”
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. State officials sued for monetary relief in their official
capacities are not “persons” subject to liability under § 1983. Hafer v. Melo,
3
502 U.S. 21, 27 (1991). State officials sued in their personal capacity, however,
“come to court as individuals . . . [and fit] comfortably within the statutory term
‘person.’ ” Id. To recover monetary damages, state officials must be sued in
their individual capacities.
The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals requires plaintiffs to plead with
specificity the capacity in which defendants are being sued. “If the complaint
does not specifically name the defendant in his individual capacity, it is
presumed he is sued only in his official capacity.” Baker v. Chisom, 501 F.3d
920, 923 (8th Cir. 2007) (quoting Artis v. Francis Howell N. Band Booster Ass'n,
161 F.3d 1178, 1182 (8th Cir.1998)). This inquiry focuses on the complaint
itself. “Nix requires that a plaintiff's complaint contain a clear statement of
[his] wish to sue defendants in their personal capacities. Neither a cryptic hint
in a plaintiff's complaint nor a statement made in response to a motion to
dismiss is sufficient.” Egerdahl v. Hibbing Cmty. Coll., 72 F.3d 615, 619-20 (8th
Cir. 1995) (emphasis added).
Sedlmeier’s second amended complaint does not state the capacity in
which he is suing defendants. He has amended his complaint twice, but has
not stated whether he is suing defendants in their official or individual
capacities. Under Eighth Circuit precedent, his complaint lacks the required
specificity to defeat the presumption that he is suing defendants in their official
capacities. In Sedlmeier’s response to defendants’ motion to dismiss the second
amended complaint, Sedlmeier stated that, “The Amended Complaint sought
defendant’s [sic] to be sued in both [their] Individual and Offical [sic]
4
capacities.” Docket 59. This is a statement made in response to a motion to
dismiss and is therefore insufficient as a “clear statement” showing Sedlmeier’s
intent to sue defendants in their individual capacities.
Sedlmeier’s pro se status does not resolve this insufficiency. Pro se filings
are “to be liberally construed.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007)
(quoting Estelle, 429 U.S. at 106). The Eighth Circuit, however, has a “brightline presumption that ‘[i]f a plaintiff's complaint is silent about the capacity in
which [he] is suing the defendant, we interpret the complaint as including only
official-capacity claims.’ ” Baker, 501 F.3d at 926 (Gruender, J., dissenting)
(quoting Egerdahl, 72 F.3d at 619). The Eighth Circuit has held this strict
stance in all capacity cases. See Artis, 161 F.3d at 1182; Egerdahl, 72 F.3d at
619; Nix v. Norman, 879 F.2d 429, 431 (8th Cir.1989).
CONCLUSION
While construed liberally, a pro se litigant’s complaint must follow the
rules of the court. The Eighth Circuit requires a clear statement of intent in
order to sue state officials in their personal capacity. This is the only way to
receive damages, which is the only relief Sedlmeier has asked for. Even though
he was given multiple opportunities, Sedlmeier failed to make this clear
statement of intent to sue defendants in their personal capacities. Therefore, he
fails to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that defendants’ motion to dismiss (Docket 58) pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) is granted.
5
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion to dismiss of defendants
Matusiak, Bowers, and Schreurs (Docket 46) is denied as moot.
Dated August 6, 2015.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Karen E. Schreier
KAREN E. SCHREIER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
6
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?