United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Southeastern Division
JEFFREY A. BECKERMANN, Plaintiff,
GLEN BABICH, et al., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter is before the Court upon Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, filed by
defendants William Stange, Brad Clark, Myrtle Pruitt, and
Brandy Hickey. (Docket No. 29). Plaintiff has not responded
to the motion, and the time for doing so has passed. The
motion will be granted in part, and denied in part.
is an inmate confined to the custody of the Missouri
Department of Corrections (“MDOC”). Stange,
Clark, Pruitt and Hickey are employed by MDOC. The events
giving rise to this lawsuit occurred at the Southeast
Correctional Center (“SECC”).
amended complaint, plaintiff alleges as follows. On June 2,
2015, plaintiff fractured his right hand while fighting with
another inmate. At approximately 5:30 p.m., he told a
corrections officer he needed medical care for his hand, and
he was evaluated by defendant Cody Stanley, a nurse. Stanley
measured plaintiff's vital signs and departed, and
plaintiff was placed into a cell with another inmate.
approximately 6:00 p.m. that same evening, Clark visited
plaintiff's cell to conduct an initial administrative
segregation hearing. Plaintiff showed Clark his
“obviously fractured right hand that was very swollen
and by now discolored, ” and requested medical
treatment. (Docket No. 8 at 21). Clark ignored his request.
At approximately 7:25 p.m., Pruitt and Hickey visited
plaintiff's cell, and plaintiff showed them his
“obviously fractured right hand that was by this time
very swollen and discolored, and pleaded for immediate
medical treatment from both defendants and made them well
aware that medical staff was denying him any medical
treatment whatsoever.” (Id. at 22). Pruitt and
Hickey ignored his request.
9, 2015, plaintiff was taken to the nurse's station and
evaluated by defendant Jason Clements, a nurse. Clements
taped two tongue depressors around plaintiff's right
fourth metacarpal and ring finger, and referred plaintiff for
an x-ray to be performed at a later date. On June 11, 2015,
plaintiff underwent an x-ray, which was positive for
fracture. Plaintiff then received medical treatment
consisting of a hard splint, a plastic bag to cover the
splint while showering, and pain medication.
23, 2015, plaintiff was transported to Jefferson City,
Missouri to see Dr. Wilson, an orthopedic specialist. Dr.
Wilson told plaintiff that, because of the long delay in
medical treatment, he would require extensive reconstructive
surgery that would involve re-fracturing his hand, and then
repairing it using a bone from his wrist, a metal plate, and
six pins. Dr. Wilson requested approval of the surgery, and
ultimately performed it on July 22, 2015.
alleges that Clark, Pruitt and Hickey were deliberately
indifferent to his serious medical needs in violation of the
Eighth Amendment. Plaintiff also alleges that Clark, Pruitt
and Hickey failed to comply with Mo. Rev. Stat. 217.410,
which required them to notify the department director that
plaintiff was suffering neglect and abuse. Plaintiff alleges
that Stange is responsible for the actions of his officers.
Plaintiff also alleges that Stange transferred him to another
facility after he initiated the grievance process.
12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
“authorizes a court to dismiss a claim on the basis of
a dispositive issue of law.” Neitzke v.
Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 326 (1989). The motion to
dismiss standard is different from the frivolity review
standard under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), and dismissal
for failure to state a claim does not invariably mean that
the claim lacked arguable merit. Id. at 329.
“When a complaint raises an arguable question of law
which the district court ultimately finds is correctly
resolved against the plaintiff, dismissal on Rule 12(b)(6)
grounds is appropriate, but dismissal on the basis of
frivolousness is not.” Id. at 328.
ruling on a motion to dismiss, the Court must assume that all
of the factual allegations in the complaint are true,
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555
(2007), and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the
non-moving party. Braden v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,
588 F.3d 585, 595 (8th Cir. 2009). The Court disregards legal
conclusions, and reviews the factual allegations for facial
plausibility. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679
(2009). “A claim has facial plausibility when the
plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to
draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable
for the misconduct alleged.” Id. at 677. To
survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, “a civil
rights complaint must contain facts which state a claim as a
matter of law and must not be conclusory.” Gregory
v. Dillard's, Inc., 565 F.3d 464, 473 (8th Cir.
2009) (en banc).
Defendants Clark, Pruitt, and Hickey: ...