Kelley v. Wright
| Decision Date | 09 December 2019 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 2:19-CV-02278-JAR-JPO |
| Parties | KEIFLAN BROCK KELLEY, Plaintiff, v. TRAVIS WRIGHT, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Kansas |
Plaintiff Keiflan Brock Kelley filed this pro se action against Defendants Travis Wright, Sheriff Jack Laurie, the Atchison County Jail, and Atchison County, Kansas, alleging violations of his constitutional rights based on events that occurred while he was detained at the Atchison County Jail. Plaintiff seeks damages for the use of excessive force, police brutality, harassment, pain and suffering, mental anguish, and emotional depression and stress.1 This matter is now before the Court on Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc. 7). For the reasons set forth below, Defendants' motion is granted.
The Court reviews a motion brought pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c) under the same standard that governs Rule 12(b)(6) motions.2 To survive a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), a complaint must present factual allegations that, assumed to be true, "raise a right to relief above the speculative level," and must contain "enough facts to state a claim to relief thatis plausible on its face."3 "[T]he complaint must give the court reason to believe that this plaintiff has a reasonable likelihood of mustering factual support for these claims."4 The plausibility standard does not require a showing of probability that a defendant has acted unlawfully, but requires more than "a sheer possibility."5 "[M]ere 'labels and conclusions,' and 'a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action' will not suffice; a plaintiff must offer specific factual allegations to support each claim."6 Finally, the Court must accept the nonmoving party's factual allegations as true and may not dismiss on the ground that it appears unlikely the allegations can be proven.7
The Supreme Court has explained the analysis as a two-step process. For the purposes of a motion to dismiss, the Court "must take all of the factual allegations in the complaint as true," but is "not bound to accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation."8 Thus, the Court must first determine if the allegations are factual and entitled to an assumption of truth, or merely legal conclusions that are not entitled to an assumption of truth.9 Second, the Court must determine whether the factual allegations, when assumed true, "plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief."10 "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 themisconduct alleged."11 A motion for judgment on the pleadings should not be granted unless the movant has established that there are no material facts to be resolved and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.12
Because Plaintiff proceeds pro se, some additional considerations frame the Court's analysis. The Court must construe Plaintiff's pleadings liberally and apply a less stringent standard than that which applies to attorneys.13 "Nevertheless, [Plaintiff] bears 'the burden of alleging sufficient facts on which a recognized legal claim could be based.'"14 The Court may not provide "additional factual allegations to round out a plaintiff's complaint or construct a legal theory on a plaintiff's behalf."15 Additionally, a pro se litigant is not excused from complying with the rules of the court and is subject to the consequences of noncompliance.16
The Court derives the following facts from Plaintiff's Complaint and construes them in the light most favorable to Plaintiff. Plaintiff was in custody at the Atchison County Jail in February 2019. On or around February 21, 2019, the jail granted Plaintiff's request meet with Defendant Travis Wright.17 During the meeting, which took place at the jail's intake area,Wright became hostile and argued with Plaintiff. Wright approached Plaintiff in an aggressive manner and commanded him to return to his pod. Plaintiff complied, and Wright followed behind shouting at Plaintiff. Plaintiff told Wright that he was making him uncomfortable, and the two exchanged unpleasant words. Upon reaching the pod's sliding door, Wright uncuffed Plaintiff's hands and told him to go to lockdown. Plaintiff complied and started walking upstairs, with Wright continuing behind him. Wright then began touching and grabbing Plaintiff's arm, despite Plaintiff's compliance with his order.
At Plaintiff's cell door, Wright twisted Plaintiff's arm and wrist multiple times, handcuffed him, and then twisted his arm and wrist again. Wright kept Plaintiff's arm twisted, then lifted Plaintiff's arms in the air while the two walked back down the stairs. Wright took Plaintiff to the intake holding cell, where he remained overnight. Wright removed the mattress and toilet paper from the holding cell, leaving Plaintiff to sleep on the bunk with no blanket for twelve hours. This confinement also resulted in Plaintiff missing his "hour out that day," dinner, and laundry service.18
Throughout these interactions, Wright verbally harassed and intimidated Plaintiff, including through the use of racist slurs and threatening to violently attack Plaintiff. After his interactions with Wright, Plaintiff requested medical attention for "extremely sore" shoulders, wrist, and neck, but was denied medical care until the following morning.19 He also alleges that Wright's actions caused him to experience numbness and loss of mobility in one hand.
Defendants filed their motion on September 11, 2019 and served Plaintiff on that date by U.S. Mail at two addresses, one of which was his address of record with the Court. However, on September 19, 2019, Defendants filed an additional "Notice of Service" indicating that they had also served Plaintiff with the motion by email and at a new street address, which was previously unknown to the Court.20 Calculating twenty-one days from this second service attempt, Plaintiff's response to Defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings was due on October 10, 2019.
When Plaintiff failed to respond, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause directing Plaintiff to show cause in writing, on or before November 7, 2019, why Defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings should not be granted as unopposed.21 The Court also ordered Plaintiff to file a response to Defendants' motion by the same date. The Court warned Plaintiff that if he failed to respond to the show-cause order, or to file a response to Defendants' motionfor judgment on the pleadings as directed, the Court would consider Defendants' motion as unopposed as described in D. Kan. Rule 7.4(b). The Clerk of the Court sent a copy of the show-cause order to Plaintiff at the updated address provided by Defendants by both regular and certified mail. The Court has since received a certified mail receipt signed by Plaintiff showing that Plaintiff received the order at this address.22
To date, Plaintiff has filed no response to either the Court's show-cause order or Defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings. Accordingly, the Court may grant Defendants' motion as uncontested. Out of an abundance of caution, the Court considers the substance of the motion below.
Defendants state, and the Court agrees, that Plaintiff appears to invoke 42 U.S.C. § 1983 as the basis for his claims arising under the Constitution. Section 1983 provides a cause of action for the deprivation of federal rights by any person acting "under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory . . . ."23 The statute "'is not itself a source of substantive rights,' but merely provides 'a method for vindicating federal rights elsewhere conferred.'"24
As discussed further below, it appears that Plaintiff alleges the violation of his rights under the Fourteenth Amendment regarding the use of excessive force and failure to provide medical care. Plaintiff's Complaint might also be construed to allege that the conditions of his pretrial confinement subjected him to punishment and/or inhumane conditions in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Defendants argue that Plaintiff's claims fail for multiple reasons,including that Plaintiff has named improper defendants, that Plaintiff has failed to allege facts sufficient to state a claim, and that Defendants are entitled to immunity from suit. The Court addresses each Defendant in turn.
Plaintiff's claims against the Atchison County Jail must be dismissed because the jail is not an agency amenable to suit. Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(b), the capacity of a party to be sued in federal court is to be determined by the law of the state where the court is located.25 Kansas courts have held that "[s]ubordinate government agencies, in the absence of statutory authorization, ordinarily do not have the capacity to sue or be sued."26 Here, there is no authority granting the Atchison County Jail the capacity to sue or be sued and, under Kansas law, courts have found that county jails lack such capacity.27 Thus, the Court must dismiss Plaintiff's claims against the Atchison County Jail.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial