Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Abbott v. Cornwell

United States District Court, W.D. Missouri, Western Division

July 20, 2018

JAMES ABBOTT, Plaintiff,
v.
CARL E. CORNWELL II, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT MANDRACCHIA'S MOTION TO DISMISS

          GREG KAYS, CHIEF JUDGE

         This case arises out of a criminal case involving pro se Plaintiff James Abbott (“Abbott”).[1] In this case, Abbott is suing the judge who presided over his criminal case, prosecuting attorneys, defense attorneys, and others involved in the criminal case, for violations of his constitutional and civil rights.

         Now before the Court is Defendant Dr. Steven Mandracchia's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 13). As explained below, the motion is GRANTED.

         Background

         Taking Plaintiff's allegations as true and drawing all reasonable inferences in his favor, the Court finds the facts to be as follows.

         This lawsuit stems from a state criminal case. Abbott was arrested and charged with a felony. After a supplemental mental health examination, the Judge dismissed his case without prejudice, finding he lacked the mental fitness to proceed, and there was not a substantial probability he would be mentally fit to proceed in the foreseeable future.

         Abbott filed this two-count lawsuit alleging violations of his civil rights by the Judge, prosecutors, public defenders, private defense attorneys, Dr. Mandracchia, and Correct Care Solutions, for actions that took place related to his criminal case. Count I alleges Abbott was detained in jail and then released to obtain immediate medical treatment at his own expense. Count II alleges Defendants conspired to deprive Abbott of his constitutional rights. Abbott seeks compensatory and punitive damages, costs, pre- and post-judgment interest, and a declaration that is constitutional and civil rights were violated.

         Dr. Mandracchia is a doctor employed by the Missouri Department of Mental Health. In Abbott's criminal case, Dr. Mandracchia served as a forensic psychologist witness. Abbott alleges Dr. Mandracchia provided two false findings that Plaintiff was mentally incompetent to stand trial (Doc. 1-3 at 1). Based on this allegation, it appears Abbott only asserts his Count One against Dr. Mandracchia.

         Dr. Mandracchia moves to dismiss Abbott's claims against him under Rule 12(b)(6) arguing Abbott has failed to state a claim that is plausible on its face and that the Eleventh Amendment bars his claim.

         Standard

         The purpose of a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) is to test the legal sufficiency of the complaint. When considering a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the court assumes the factual allegations of a complaint are true and construes the facts in favor of the plaintiff. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 326 (1989). To avoid dismissal, the complaint must include “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). “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.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).

         Because Plaintiff is pro se, the Court is bound to liberally construe his filings in order to do substantial justice. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976). “Though pro se complaints are to be construed liberally, they still must allege sufficient facts to support the claims advanced.” Stone v. Harry, 364 F.3d 912, 914 (8th Cir. 2004).

         Discussion

         I. The Eleventh Amendment bars Abbott's claim against ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.