Hinton v. Corrections Corp. of America, Civil Action No. 08-778 (RWR).

CourtUnited States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)
Writing for the CourtRichard W. Roberts
Citation624 F.Supp.2d 45
Decision Date11 June 2009
Docket NumberCivil Action No. 08-778 (RWR).
PartiesKenneth A. HINTON, Plaintiff, v. CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA, Defendant.
624 F.Supp.2d 45
Kenneth A. HINTON, Plaintiff,
v.
CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA, Defendant.
Civil Action No. 08-778 (RWR).
United States District Court, District of Columbia.
June 11, 2009.

Kenneth A. Hinton, Arlington, VA, pro se.

Ronald William Gill, Office of Attorney General, Washington, DC, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

RICHARD W. ROBERTS, District Judge.


Plaintiff Kenneth A. Hinton, a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis at the time,1 filed this complaint against the Corrections Corporation of America, alleging that the defendant violated the law by

Page 46

not timely providing him appropriate prescription eyeglasses when he was in defendant's custody at the Central Treatment Facility ("CTF") in the District of Columbia. The defendant has filed a motion to dismiss and the plaintiff has filed an opposition. Because the defendant has shown that the defendant did not, and had no obligation to, provide eye care or other medical services to the inmates housed at the CTF at any time relevant to this complaint, the complaint will be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted as to this defendant.

BACKGROUND

Using a form for claims brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the complaint alleges that defendant did not furnish plaintiff with prescription eyeglasses that had been prescribed for him in November 2006 while plaintiff was confined in the CTF. Compl. at 5. The complaint alleges that plaintiff suffered "blurred and diminished vision, anxiety, insomnia, post-traumatic stress, and emotional/mental anguish and distress" and "other medial discomforts associated with the "deliberate indifference, negligence and breach of care and duty to deliver [his] prescribed eyeglasses to [him]." Id.

The defendant has moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted against this defendant, contending that at all times relevant, the defendant did not, and was not obligated to, provide prescription eye care or services, or any other kind of medical services, to CTF inmates.

DISCUSSION

A court may dismiss a complaint or any portion of it for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Fed. R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). A court considering such a motion to dismiss must assume that all factual allegations are true, even if they are doubtful. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-56, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007); Kowal v. MCI Communications Corp., 16 F.3d 1271, 1276 (D.C.Cir.1994) (noting that a court must construe the complaint "liberally in the plaintiffs' favor" and "grant plaintiffs the benefit of all inferences that can be derived from the facts alleged"). A court need not, however, "accept inferences drawn by plaintiffs if such inferences are unsupported by the facts set out in the complaint. Nor must [a] court accept legal conclusions cast in...

To continue reading

Request your trial
155 practice notes
  • Bank of Am., N. A. v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp., Civil Action No. 10–CV–1681 (BJR).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)
    • December 10, 2012
    ...the Court will not consider extraneous documents, except under limited circumstances. See generally Hinton v. Corr. Corp. of Am., 624 F.Supp.2d 45, 46 (D.D.C.2009). For instance, this Court may consider documents attached to the Amended Complaint and/or Counterclaims, Stewart v. Nat'l Educ.......
  • Pearson v. District of Columbia, Civil Action No. 08-758 (ESH).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)
    • July 23, 2009
    ...is produced not by the plaintiff in the complaint but by the defendant in a motion to dismiss. Hinton v. Corrections Corp. of Am., 624 F.Supp.2d 45, 45-46 (D.D.C.2009) (internal quotation omitted); see also Marshall v. Honeywell Technology Solutions, Inc., 536 F.Supp.2d 59, 65 (D.D.C.2008) ......
  • Boster v. Reliance Standard Life Ins. Co., Civil Action No. 12–0980 (ABJ).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)
    • August 8, 2013
    ...to dismiss, the court may consider “any documents attached to or incorporated in the complaint.”); Hinton v. Corrections Corp. of Am., 624 F.Supp.2d 45, 46 (D.D.C.2009) (stating that on a motion to dismiss, the court may consider “the facts alleged in the complaint, documents attached as ex......
  • Busby v. Capital One, N.A., Civil Action No. 11–01172 (CKK).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)
    • March 25, 2013
    ...which was attached as Exhibit A to Capital One's motion in ruling on Capital One's Motion to Dismiss. See Hinton v. Corr. Corp. of Am., 624 F.Supp.2d 45, 46 (D.D.C.2009) ( “Matters that are not ‘outside’ the pleadings that a court may consider on a motion to dismiss include the facts allege......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
157 cases
  • Bank of Am., N. A. v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp., Civil Action No. 10–CV–1681 (BJR).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)
    • December 10, 2012
    ...the Court will not consider extraneous documents, except under limited circumstances. See generally Hinton v. Corr. Corp. of Am., 624 F.Supp.2d 45, 46 (D.D.C.2009). For instance, this Court may consider documents attached to the Amended Complaint and/or Counterclaims, Stewart v. Nat'l Educ.......
  • Pearson v. District of Columbia, Civil Action No. 08-758 (ESH).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)
    • July 23, 2009
    ...is produced not by the plaintiff in the complaint but by the defendant in a motion to dismiss. Hinton v. Corrections Corp. of Am., 624 F.Supp.2d 45, 45-46 (D.D.C.2009) (internal quotation omitted); see also Marshall v. Honeywell Technology Solutions, Inc., 536 F.Supp.2d 59, 65 (D.D.C.2008) ......
  • Boster v. Reliance Standard Life Ins. Co., Civil Action No. 12–0980 (ABJ).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)
    • August 8, 2013
    ...to dismiss, the court may consider “any documents attached to or incorporated in the complaint.”); Hinton v. Corrections Corp. of Am., 624 F.Supp.2d 45, 46 (D.D.C.2009) (stating that on a motion to dismiss, the court may consider “the facts alleged in the complaint, documents attached as ex......
  • Busby v. Capital One, N.A., Civil Action No. 11–01172 (CKK).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)
    • March 25, 2013
    ...which was attached as Exhibit A to Capital One's motion in ruling on Capital One's Motion to Dismiss. See Hinton v. Corr. Corp. of Am., 624 F.Supp.2d 45, 46 (D.D.C.2009) ( “Matters that are not ‘outside’ the pleadings that a court may consider on a motion to dismiss include the facts allege......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT