United States District Court, D. Kansas
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
CROW U.S. SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE
matter is before the Court on three motions filed by the
defendants: 1) a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a
Claim (ECF No. 24) filed by Defendant Jason (lnu); 2) a
Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, Motion for Summary
Judgment (ECF No. 31) filed by Defendants Burris, Rodgers,
and Schnurr; and 3) a Motion to Stay Discovery (ECF No. 33)
filed by Defendants Burris, Rodgers, and Schnurr. Plaintiff
has not filed a response to any of these motions, and the
time to do so has long expired. For the reasons described herein,
both motions to dismiss are granted and the motion to stay
discovery is denied as moot.
Daniels's complaint (ECF No. 1) alleges he was stabbed
multiple times by an unrestrained inmate (identified by the
defendants as Verl Baker, assigned as a porter to the
segregation unit) while he was handcuffed and in the sick
call room of the Super Max segregation unit at Hutchison
Correctional Facility (HCF) on August 28, 2017. Plaintiff was
being examined by Defendant Jason Friesen when Inmate Baker
entered the room with a homemade knife and attacked
Plaintiff. Plaintiff claims Defendant Rogers did nothing
while he was being stabbed repeatedly. He asserts the
policies of the facility were directly involved because
Defendants should have known Super Max inmates should not be
allowed to “mingle” with any unrestrained
inmates. He claims the defendants failed to protect him from
the assault, violating his rights under the Eighth Amendment.
seeks compensatory damages of $1, 500, 000, punitive damages
of $2, 500, 000, and exemplary damages of $1, 000, 000.
to Dismiss (ECF No. 24)
Motion to Dismiss and Memorandum in Support, Defendant Jason
(lnu) (identified as Jason Friesen, LPN) argues he should be
dismissed from the lawsuit because Plaintiff fails to state a
claim against him, pointing out the only allegation regarding
Defendant Friesen in the complaint is that he sprang into
action to protect Plaintiff when he was attacked by Inmate
to Dismiss (ECF No. 31)
Burris, Schnurr, and Rogers make several arguments in their
motion to dismiss. First, they argue that Defendants Burris
and Schnurr should be dismissed because the complaint fails
to allege facts showing they personally participated in the
alleged constitutional violation. Second, these defendants
argue they are entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity.
Finally, they argue that Defendant Rogers is entitled to
qualified immunity because his actions in allegedly failing
to prevent an unforeseen attack on Plaintiff by another
inmate did not violate Plaintiff's constitutional rights.
Standards Rule 12(b)(6)
survive a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), a complaint
must contain ‘enough facts to state a claim to relief
that is plausible on its face.'” Schrock v.
Wyeth, Inc., 727 F.3d 1273, 1280 (10th Cir. 2013)
(quoting 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). When applying this
standard, a court must accept as true all well-pleaded
factual allegations and then ask whether those facts state a
plausible claim for relief. See Id. at 679. Viewing
the complaint in this manner, the Court must decide whether
the plaintiff's allegations give rise to more than
speculative possibilities. Id. “[W]here the
well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer more than
the mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint has
alleged-but it has not ‘show[n]'-‘that the
pleader is entitled to relief.'” Id.
(quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2)).
the Court has considered the material attached to
Defendants' memorandum in support, in addition to the
Martinez report filed in this case, in evaluating
Plaintiff's claims, it decides the motion under the
request for summary judgment contained therein. See
Casanova v. Ulibarri, 595 F.3d 1120, 1125
(10th Cir. 2010) (district court's dismissal
under Rule 12(b)(6) of a prisoner's complaint filed pro
se characterized as “irregular” where court had
not limited its review to the complaint).
judgment is appropriate if the pleadings and other materials
before the Court show no genuine issue as to any material
fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter
of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c); accord Anderson v. Liberty
Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247 (1986). A factual dispute
is “material” only if it “might affect the
outcome of the suit under the governing law.”
Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. at 248. The Court views all
evidence and draws all reasonable inferences in the ...