Wilson v. Mattson et al
ORDER granting 18 Motion to Dismiss Party Olivier Poirot. Party Olivier Poirot terminated. Signed by U.S. District Judge Karen E. Schreier on 1/6/2021. Mailed Plaintiff 1/6/2021 (DJP)
Case 4:19-cv-04197-KES Document 41 Filed 01/06/21 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 476
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA
KEITH DAVID WILSON,
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
DISMISS OLIVIER POIROT
MIKE MATTSON, Warden, Minnehaha
County jail, in his individual and official
capacity; JOHN A. DOE, Summit Foods
Inc., Minnehaha County jail, in his/her
individual and official capacity; and
Plaintiff, Keith David Wilson, filed a pro se civil rights lawsuit under 42
U.S.C. § 1983. Docket 1. Defendant, Olivier Poirot, moves to dismiss under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure12(b)(6) all claims that are pending against him.
Docket 18. Wilson filed a motion to submit evidence to support his complaint
(Docket 22), but he did not otherwise respond to Poirot’s motion to dismiss.
The motion to dismiss is granted.
Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides for motions
to dismiss for “failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” Fed.
R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). When considering such motions, the court must accept as
true the allegations in the complaint and construe the pleadings in the light
Case 4:19-cv-04197-KES Document 41 Filed 01/06/21 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 477
most favorable to the plaintiff. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). The
pleaded facts must demonstrate a plausible claim, that is, one in which the
pleader has shown more than an abstract “possibility” that the defendant has
engaged in actionable misconduct. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
In his complaint, Wilson alleges violations of his rights under the First
Amendment, Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act and the
Fourteenth Amendment. Docket 1. He asserts that Mattson and Summit
substantially burdened his religion by failing to provide him with a soy-free
diet. Id. His complaint, however, does not identify Poirot or make any factual
allegations against Poirot. Id. Wilson’s related Brief in Support of Complaint
(Docket 2) and Miscellaneous Evidence (Docket 22) do not identify Poirot or
assert any factual allegations against Poirot that would support that Poirot was
involved in Wilson’s meal requests. Poirot was not named as a defendant in
Wilson’s complaint. Docket 1. Instead, Wilson listed Poirot on a Summons and
it appears he was administratively added as a defendant by the Clerk of Courts
based on the Summons having been issued and served.
When a complaint contains no allegations that the defendant had any
personal involvement relating to the events giving rise to the lawsuit, dismissal
of that party from the action is proper. See, e.g., Eaton v. Minn Atty. Gen. Office,
2010 WL 3724398, at *5 (D. Minn. 2010) (dismissing a party to a lawsuit when
“there [were] no allegations within Plaintiff’s complaint which suggest that the
Case 4:19-cv-04197-KES Document 41 Filed 01/06/21 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 478
[defendant] played any role in any of the events giving rise to this lawsuit.”);
Dahl v. Kanawha Inv. Holding Co., 161 F.R.D. 673, 682 (N.D. Iowa 1995)
(dismissing defendants from a lawsuit pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) where “[n]o
facts appear in the complaint stating any allegation of a cause of action
against” the defendants). Because Wilson has not alleged any facts that state a
cause of action against Poirot, Poirot is entitled to dismissal from the action.
Thus, it is ORDERED that Poirot’s motion to dismiss (Docket 18) is
granted. This matter is dismissed without prejudice.
Dated January 6, 2021.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Karen E. Schreier
KAREN E. SCHREIER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?