United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, Fayetteville Division
ORDER
TIMOTHY L. BROOKS JUDGE
Plaintiff
Frank Carmona Rodriguez proceeds in this matter pro
se and in forma pauperis pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. In his First Amended Complaint (Doc. 30), he
asserts claims for excessive force, unconstitutional
conditions of confinement, and deliberate indifference to a
medical condition. He names as Defendants Deputy Ivan Torres,
Sheriff Holloway, Captain Guyll, and Turn Key Health Clinics.
Currently pending before the Court is a Motion to Dismiss
filed by Defendants Holloway and Guyll (Doc. 32), and a
Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendants Holloway, Guyll, and
Torres (Doc. 38). Also pending is a Joint Stipulation of
Dismissal filed by the Plaintiff and Defendants Holloway,
Guyll, and Torres (Doc. 43).
I.
BACKGROUND
In
their Motion to Dismiss filed on October 1, 2018 (Doc. 32),
Defendants Holloway and Guyll argue that the Plaintiffs First
Amended Complaint fails to state facts showing that either of
them engaged in wrongful activity or caused damage or injury
to the Plaintiff. The same day the motion was filed, the
Court entered a text-only Order (Doc. 35) directing Plaintiff
to file a response by October 22, 2018. In the Order, the
Plaintiff was "advised that failure to timely and
properly comply . . . shall result in the dismissal of this
action, without prejudice, pursuant to Local Rule
5.5(c)(2)." Id. The Plaintiff did not respond
to the Motion to Dismiss by the appointed deadline.
Defendants
Holloway, Guyll, and Torres filed a subsequent Motion to
Dismiss (Doc. 38) seeking dismissal of all claims against
them due to Plaintiff's failure to comply with the
Court's text-only Order of October 1. On October 29,
2018, the Court entered another text-only Order, directing
Plaintiff to respond to Defendants' newest motion to
dismiss by November 19, 2018. (Doc. 41). On November 7, 2018,
Plaintiff responded to both pending motions to dismiss in the
same document, stating succinctly that he "would like to
ask the court for a denial on the dismissal of this
action." (Doc. 42). Also on November 7, 2018, Defendants
Holloway, Guyll, and Torres joined the Plaintiff in filing a
Stipulation of Dismissal concerning Plaintiffs claims about
overcrowding, lack of working TB lights, dirty
ventilation/bad-smelling air, excessive noise, and
sub-standard food in the jail. See Doc. 43.
Plaintiff then filed a further response to Holloway's and
Guyll's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 32), confirming that he
wished to dismiss the claims that were listed in the Join
Stipulation, but pursue all the rest of his claims.
See Doc. 47. Below, the Court will consider the
parties' Joint Stipulation and then rule on the pending
Motions to Dismiss.
II.
MOTIONS
A.
Joint Stipulation of Dismissal (Doc. 43)
Pursuant
to the Joint Stipulation of Dismissal filed by the Plaintiff
and Defendants Holloway, Guyll, and Torres, all claims
alleging that Plaintiffs rights were violated due to
unconstitutional conditions of confinement-including
overcrowding, lack of working TB lights, dirty
ventilation/bad-smelling air, excessive noise, and
sub-standard food-are DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE.
B.
Motions to Dismiss (Docs. 32, 38)
1.
Legal Standard
Rule
8(a) contains the general pleading rules and requires a
complaint to present "a short and plain statement of the
claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief."
Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). "In order to meet this standard,
and survive a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), 'a
complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as
true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face.'" Braden v. Wal- Mart Stores, Inc.,
588 F.3d 585, 594 (8th Cir. 2009) (quoting Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (internal quotations
omitted)). "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, 556 U.S.
at 678. While the Court will liberally construe a pro
se plaintiff's complaint, the plaintiff must allege
sufficient facts to support his claims. See Stone v.
Harry, 364 F.3d 912, 914 (8th Cir. 2004).
2.
Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Comply with a Court Order
(Doc. 38)
Holloway,
Guyll, and Torres argue in their more recent Motion to
Dismiss (Doc. 38) that the Court should dismiss Plaintiffs
claims due to his failure to comply with an order directing
him to file a response to a motion by a date certain. The
Court agrees that Plaintiff filed his response to the motion
out of time, and in doing so, also violated the Court's
text-only Order (Doc. 35) that set the response deadline.
With all that said, however, the Court in its discretion
chooses to excuse Plaintiffs lateness in filing in favor of
considering his response to the motion on the merits. For
these reasons, Defendants* more recent Motion to Dismiss
(Doc. 38) is DENIED.
3.
Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a ...