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.

Esparza v. Manley

United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division

September 24, 2019

JOHNNY M. ESPARZA, Plaintiff,
v.
DIANE MANLEY, et al., Defendants,

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          RODNEY W. SIPPEL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         This matter comes before the Court on the motion of defendants Zackary Driskell, Diane Manley, Derek Bouse, Monty Wright, and Crawford County, by and through counsel, for partial judgment on the pleadings. (Docket No. 32). For the reasons discussed below, the Court will grant defendants’ motion.

         Standard of Review

         After the pleadings are closed, a party may move for judgment on the pleadings. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(c). A motion for judgment on the pleadings is reviewed “under the same standard used to address a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6).” Clemons v. Crawford, 585 F.3d 1119, 1124 (8th Cir. 2009).

         To state a claim, a plaintiff must demonstrate a plausible claim for relief, which is more than a “mere possibility of misconduct.” 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 678. The court must “accept as true the facts alleged, but not legal conclusions or threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements.” Barton v. Taber, 820 F.3d 958, 964 (8th Cir. 2016). See also Brown v. Green Tree Servicing LLC, 820 F.3d 371, 372-73 (8th Cir. 2016) (stating that court must accept factual allegations in complaint as true, but is not required to “accept as true any legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation”).

         Background

         Plaintiff filed a pro se civil complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on May 18, 2018, naming as defendants the Crawford County Sheriff’s Department and Diane Manley. (Docket No. 1). Along with the complaint, plaintiff also filed a motion to appoint counsel. (Docket No. 4). The complaint generally alleged that defendants had not allowed him to use his electronic voice box while incarcerated at the Crawford County Jail. Without the voice box, plaintiff was unable to verbally communicate.

         On August 15, 2018, the Court granted plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel. (Docket No. 6). The Court noted that plaintiff had stated serious allegations and believed that he could benefit from legal assistance. Appointed counsel was directed to file an amended complaint.

         Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on December 7, 2018. (Docket No. 13). The amended complaint named the Crawford County Sheriff’s Department, Diane Manley, Zackary Driskell, Derek Bouse, and Monty E. as defendants. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Crawford County Sheriff’s Department pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). (Docket No. 24). Plaintiff responded by filing a second amended petition terminating the Crawford County Sheriff’s Department, and naming as defendants Derek Bouse, Zackary Driskell, Monty Wright, Diane Manley, and “K – Badge #757.” (Docket No. 27). Defendants were sued in both their official and individual capacities.

         On March 1, 2019, defendants filed an answer to plaintiff’s second amended complaint. (Docket No. 30). On March 22, 2019, defendants filed a motion for partial judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(c). (Docket No. 32). Defendants also filed a memorandum in support of their motion. (Docket No. 33). Plaintiff filed a memorandum in opposition to defendants’ motion on April 19, 2019. (Docket No. 37). Defendant’s reply was filed on May 3, 2019. (Docket No. 40).

         Defendants’ Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings

         Defendants’ motion seeks judgment on several claims. (Docket No. 32 at 2). First, defendants Driskell, Manley, Bouse, and Wright seek to have their official capacity claims dismissed as duplicative, as Crawford County is also named as a defendant in the action. Second, defendants seek judgment on the pleadings with regard to the failure to supervise claim in Count IV, because plaintiff has failed to state a claim. Finally, defendants seek judgment on the pleadings on the failure to protect claim in Count V, regarding black mold exposure, because plaintiff has failed to allege an unconstitutional condition of confinement and has failed to establish defendants’ liability.

         Discussion

         As noted above, defendants seek judgment on the pleadings with regards to the official capacity claims against defendants Driskell, Manley, Bouse, and Wright; the failure to supervise claim in Count IV; and the failure to protect claim in Count V. For the reasons ...


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.