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.

Williams v. Correct Care Solutions

United States District Court, D. Kansas

April 12, 2019

FREDDIE WILLIAMS, Plaintiff,
v.
CORRECT CARE SOLUTIONS and KAY THOMPSON Defendants.

          ORDER

          SAM A. CROW, U.S. DISTRICT SENIOR JUDGE

         Plaintiff has filed a pro se action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action was filed in state court and has been removed to this court. From the complaint, plaintiff appears to be an inmate at the Wyandotte County Adult Detention Center (WCADC). He names Correct Care Solutions (CCS) as the sole defendant in his handwritten complaint (Doc. No. 4, p. 1) and adds Kay Thompson as a defendant in an attached complaint written on a court-produced form for § 1983 actions (Doc. No. 4, p. 9).

         Plaintiff alleges that while incarcerated at the WCADC he did not receive medication for a seizure condition until July 28, 2017 when plaintiff was hospitalized after suffering a seizure, even though there was information available well before that time that he suffered seizures. Plaintiff has also supplemented his complaint with allegations that he has had shingles that defendants failed to diagnose and treat properly.

         This case is now before the court upon defendant CCS's motion for dismiss pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) - Doc. No. 6 - and other pending motions.

         II. Pro se standards

         “A pro se litigant's pleadings are to be construed liberally and held to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). A pro se litigant, however, is not relieved from following the same rules of procedure as any other litigant. See Green v. Dorrell, 969 F.2d 915, 917 (10th Cir. 1992). A district court should not “assume the role of advocate for the pro se litigant.” Hall, supra. Nor is the court to “supply additional factual allegations to round out a plaintiff's complaint.” Whitney v. State of New Mexico, 113 F.3d 1170, 1173-74 (10th Cir. 1997).

         III. Rule 12(b)(6) standards

         When deciding whether plaintiff's complaint “fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted” under Rule 12(b)(6), the court must determine whether the complaint contains “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face.'” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)(quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A complaint will not “suffice if it tenders ‘naked assertion[s]' devoid of ‘further factual enhancement.'” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557).

The plausibility standard is not akin to a “probability requirement, ” but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully. Where a complaint pleads facts that are “merely consistent with” a defendant's liability, it “stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility of ‘entitlement to relief.'”

Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557). A plausibility analysis is a context-specific task depending on a host of considerations, including judicial experience, common sense and the strength of competing explanations for the defendant's conduct. See id. at 679; Twombly, 550 U.S. at 567.

         The court will not accept broad allegations which lack sufficient detail to give fair notice of what plaintiff's claims are. Section 1983 plaintiffs must “make clear exactly who is alleged to have done what to whom, to provide each individual with fair notice as to the basis of the claims against him or her, as distinguished from collective allegations against the state.” Robbins v. Oklahoma ex rel. Dep't of Human Servs., 519 F.3d 1242, 1250 (10th Cir. 2008). This can be particularly important in prisoner litigation. Gee v. Pacheco, 627 F.3d 1178, 1185 (10th Cir. 2010)(“A prisoner claim will often not be plausible unless it recites facts that might well be unnecessary in other contexts.”).

         At this point, the court's role is not to weigh potential evidence the parties might present at trial but to assess whether the complaint alone is legally sufficient to state a claim for relief. See MacArthur v. San Juan County, 309 F.3d 1216, 1221 (10th Cir. 2002)(quotation omitted). An exception to this rule is that the court may consider documents referred to in the complaint that are central to the plaintiff's claim. Id.

         Typically, dismissals under Rule 12(b)(6) follow the arguments made in a motion to dismiss. But, the court may dismiss on the basis of its own arguments when it is patently obvious that plaintiff could not prevail on the facts alleged and allowing an opportunity to amend the complaint would be futile. See Whitney v. State of New Mexico, 113 F.3d 1170, 1172 (10th Cir. 1997); Hall, 935 F.2d at 1109-10. In this order, the court relies on arguments made by defendants and arguments raised by the court.[1]

         IV. The complaint fails to state a claim ...


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.