United States District Court, W.D. Missouri, Western Division
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT MANDRACCHIA'S MOTION TO
KAYS, CHIEF JUDGE
case arises out of a criminal case involving pro se Plaintiff
James Abbott (“Abbott”). 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.
before the Court is Defendant Dr. Steven Mandracchia's
Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 13). As explained below, the motion
Plaintiff's allegations as true and drawing all
reasonable inferences in his favor, the Court finds the facts
to be as follows.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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).
The Eleventh Amendment bars Abbott's claim against ...