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.

Solis v. Jones-Foster

United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, Texarkana Division

June 24, 2019

FRANK SOLIS PLAINTIFF
v.
DR. MELINE JONES-FOSTER, Doctor, Correct Care Solutions, Southwest Arkansas Community Correction Center “SWACCC”; CORRECT CARE SOLUTIONS, Medical Over SWACCC; MS. REED, ARO SWACCC; and MS. KEENER, Records, SWACCC DEFENDANTS

          ORDER

          Susan O. Hickey, Chief United States District Judge.

         Before the Court is a Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 18) filed by Defendant Correct Care Solutions (“CCS”) and Defendant Dr. Meline Jones-Foster (“Defendant Jones-Foster”).[1] Plaintiff has filed a response. (ECF No. 27). The Court finds this matter ripe for consideration.

         BACKGROUND

         This is a civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff is currently incarcerated in the Department of Community Correction, Central Arkansas Community Correction Center, in Little Rock, Arkansas. The incidents giving rise to Plaintiff's claims occurred while he was incarcerated in the Southwest Arkansas Community Correction Center (“SWACCC”) in Texarkana, Arkansas, serving a sentence as a result of a judgment or conviction. (ECF No. 11, p. 3).

         Plaintiff filed his Complaint on February 25, 2019, in the Eastern District of Arkansas. (ECF No. 2). On March 4, 2019, the case was transferred to the Western District of Arkansas, Texarkana Division. (ECF No. 4). Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis was granted that same day. (ECF No. 6). In response to this Court's order (ECF No. 8), Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint on April 22, 2019. (ECF No. 11).

         Plaintiff's only reference to Defendant CCS in his Amended Complaint is in the case caption. (ECF No. 11, p. 1). He does not make any specific allegations against CCS in the body of the Amended Complaint. As to Defendant Jones-Foster, Plaintiff claims she denied him adequate medical care on January 28, 2019 when she “[t]old me since I was off my meds when I was on streets she wasn't giving me my meds my cancer doctor proscribed. And If I learned to stay out of prison I wouldn't have to worry about them putting me on my meds.” (ECF No. 11, p. 4). When asked to describe the custom or policy that caused the violation by Defendant Jones-Foster Plaintiff states, “Dr. Jones-Foster neglecting proper medical care.” Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages and requests a “written apology and Doctor to lose license.” (ECF No. 11, p. 7).

         On May 28, 2019, Defendants CCS and Jones-Foster filed the instant Motion to Dismiss, arguing that Plaintiff has failed to state a claim against them upon which relief can be granted. (ECF No. 18). Specifically, they contend that Plaintiff only makes specific allegations against Defendants Jones-Foster, Reed and Keener, and does not make any reference to Defendant CCS other than listing the company as a defendant in the caption of the Amended Complaint. Id. at p. 1.

         Defendants also argue that Plaintiff set forth a claim alleging “medical neglect mental anguish” against Defendant Jones-Foster. Defendants argue that negligence does not state a constitutional deprivation and therefore, Plaintiff has failed to state a claim under section 1983. Id.

         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).

         DISCUSSION

         A. Defendant CCS

         Plaintiff has named Defendant CCS in the caption of the case but has not made specific claims against the company in his Amended Complaint.

         In order to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege each defendant acted under color of state law and that he or she violated a right secured by the constitution. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 108 S.Ct. 2250, 101 L.Ed.2d 40 (1988); Dunham v. Wadley, 195 F.3d 1007, 1009 (8th Cir. 1999). A complaint should be dismissed for failure to state a claim if the plaintiff's complaint sets forth no facts against a defendant to support the purported cause of action. Schaller Tel. Co. v. Golden Sky Sys., Inc., 298 F.3d 736, 740 (8th Cir. 2002). “Where a complaint alleges no specific act or conduct on the part of the defendant and the complaint is silent as to the defendant except for his ...


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.