Rigler v. Lampert, Case No. 15-CV-154-S.
| Citation | 248 F.Supp.3d 1224 |
| Decision Date | 31 March 2017 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 15-CV-154-S. |
| Parties | Dennis E. RIGLER, Plaintiff, v. Robert O. LAMPERT, Director, Wyoming Department of Corrections; Steve Hargett, Warden, Wyoming Department of Corrections Medium Correctional Institution; the Wyoming Department of Corrections; Prison Health Services; and Corizon Medical, in their individual and official capacities, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Wyoming |
Dennis Eugene Rigler, Newcastle, WY, pro se.
Jesse Naiman, Cheyenne, WY, Kathleen B Dixon, Chapin & Dixon, Casper, WY, for Defendant.
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS, MOTION FOR PARTIAL JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS, AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
This matter is before the Court upon an amended pro se prisoner civil rights complaint, [ECF No. 8], filed in forma pauperis , [ECF No. 6], pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, by Dennis E. Rigler, Plaintiff. Currently pending before the Court is a Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) by Corizon Health, Inc. (Corizon) [ECF No. 23], as well as Motions for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings, and Summary Judgment, by Robert O. Lampert, Steve Hargett, and the Wyoming Department of Corrections (Wyoming (Wyoming Defendants). [ECF No. 47; ECF No. 49].
The Court, having carefully considered each pleading, the parties' motions, responses, briefs and attachments thereto and being otherwise fully advised, FINDS the Motion to Dismiss, and the Motions for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings, and Summary Judgment should be GRANTED.
Following his 1996 convictions for various crimes Plaintiff became an inmate in the Wyoming Department of Corrections facilities and at the time of the events giving rise to his allegations was housed at the Wyoming Medium Correctional Institution (WMCI). [ECF No. 8, p. 1]; see also Rigler v. State , 941 P.2d 734 (Wyo. 1997). Plaintiffs initial complaint in this matter was filed on September 3, 2015, alleging various claims including (1) violations of various civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, based upon violations of the Eighth Amendment; (2) violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA); (3) violations of the Rehabilitation Act (RA); (4) violations of the CAT Treaty; and (4) violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 241 and 242. [ECF No. 1, p. 1]. Thereafter, on January 4, 2016, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint wherein he alleges that when a prison fire alarm went off on or about April 27, 2011, his already compromised hearing received further injury which resulted in permanent damage to his auditory nerve. [ECF No. 8, p. 9]. He asserts, in the process of receiving assistance for this medical condition, his "high quality hearing aids were replaced with inferior hearing aids that make it difficult for him to handle noise interference and very difficult to use the phone to communicate with his outside contacts, an activity afforded other inmates." [ECF No. 8, p. 10].
Plaintiff specifically claims a Corizon employee, Nurse Friendly, removed one of his "high quality hearing aids purchased by [him] at his own expense under the pretense of sending it to get tested," and when it was returned to him, it had been "smashed beyond repair, leaving [him] with only one functional hearing aid." [ECF No. 8, p. 10] He asserts Sergeant McCartney1 then confiscated his damaged hearing aid as well as his other high-quality hearing aid, and they were replaced with lower-quality hearing aids. [ECF No. 8, p. 10]. He further argues having lower-quality hearing aids renders him "unable to adequately enjoy the benefits of telephone conversations, watching television, listening to music, [and] carrying on personal, medical and legal conversations" without yelling or repeating statements. [ECF No. 8, p. 10]. It also exposes him to problems with the corrections officers who believe he is ignoring them when he simply is incapable of hearing them. [ECF No. 8, p. 11]. Plaintiff also alleges the Wyoming Department of Corrections has "refused to pay their bills in relation to [him], resulting in [his] credit rating being damaged." He states Warden Hargett "has supposedly corrected this problem numerous times without any type of progress." [ECF No. 8, p. 11].
Plaintiff has concerns as well with a medical visit on September 24, 2015. He alleges after the fire alarm caused damage to his ears, the nurses found "dried blood in his ear but no other obvious indicator of new damage." The Corizon nurses (who he does not name) told him to take Alka–Seltzer
Plus. He has received no additional treatment "in relation to this complaint." [ECF No. 8, pp. 11, 12]. Plaintiff asserts he attempted to correct these problems by appealing to Director Lampert through the grievance process. [ECF No. 8, p. 8]. Plaintiff also attaches to his Amended Complaint a "Transcription of supporting documents" wherein he summarizes alleged inmate communications and grievance responses but does not attach the actual documents transcribed. [ECF No. 8, p. 14–20].
Plaintiff, under the heading "Recompense Sought" seeks: (1) replacement of his two "high quality hearing aids" (2) "correction of his credit rating" (3) permission to purchase amplified headphones; (4) adequate medical treatment for his hearing issues; (5) prosecution of "those who have violated 18 U.S.C. § 241 and 18 U.S.C. § 242"; and (6) "the sum of $8,737,000.01 for the deliberate wrongs done to him...". [ECF No. 8, pp. 12, 13].
Defendants have filed several dispositive motions challenging the legal sufficiency and factual basis of Plaintiff's claims. Corizon Health, Inc. has filed a Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 24] asserting that Plaintiff's claims, to the extent asserted against Corizon and/or it's nurses, contain insufficient factual allegations to support any plausible claim for relief or the legal basis for relief is not recognized and should be dismissed. The State Defendants have filed a Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings [ECF No. 47 and 48] in which they assert all but Plaintiffs claims under the Rehabilitation Act fail as a matter of law. As to Plaintiffs claim under the Rehabilitation Act, the State Defendants have filed a Motion for Summary Judgment and materials in support thereof [ECF No. 49 and 50] asserting Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies via the prison grievance process and thus his claim must be dismissed. See Snyder v. Harris , 406 Fed.Appx. 313 (10th Cir. 2011).
"After the pleadings are closed—but early enough not to delay trial—a party may move for judgment on the pleadings." Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c). The standard of review for a motion for judgment on the pleadings is the same standard applied in considering a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). Nelson v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. , 419 F.3d 1117, 1118 (10th Cir. 2005) ; see also Fleming v. Coulter , 573 Fed.Appx. 765, 768 (10th Cir. 2014) ; Myers v. Koopman , 738 F.3d 1190, 1193 (10th Cir. 2013).
A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) requires the Court to determine whether a plaintiff has pled sufficient facts to state a plausible claim.
To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. 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. The plausibility standard is not akin to a probability requirement, but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully. Where a complaint pleads facts that are merely consistent with a defendant's liability, it stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility of entitlement to relief.
Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (quotation marks and internal citations omitted). See also Schrock v. Wyeth, Inc. , 727 F.3d 1273, 1280 (10th Cir. 2013).
Two principles underlie this standard. First, only factual allegations are given weight in the analysis. Simple naked assertions devoid of factual enhancement are not sufficient. Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. at 678–679, 129 S.Ct. 1937. Second, only plausible claims survive. Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. at 679, 129 S.Ct. 1937.
Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief will, as the Court of Appeals observed, be a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense. But where 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 shown-that the pleader is entitled to relief.
Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. at 679, 129 S.Ct. 1937 (quotation marks and internal citations omitted). See also Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007) ; Robbins v. Oklahoma , 519 F.3d 1242, 1247–1248 (10th Cir. 2008), and Silver v. Glass , 459 Fed.Appx. 691, 694–696 (10th Cir. 2012). In discussing this plausibility standard, the Court in Iqbal noted "a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully" is insufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Iqbal , 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937 . If the allegations of the complaint "are so general that they encompass a wide swath of conduct, much of it innocent, then the plaintiffs have not nudged their claims across the line from conceivable to plausible." Khalik v. United Air Lines , 671 F.3d 1188, 1191 (10th Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks omitted). See also United States ex rel. Hanlon v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wyo. Guardianship Corp. v. Wyo. State Hosp.
...office, and thus the state, as the official is simply an agent of the government entity for which they work." Rigler v. Lampert , 248 F.Supp.3d 1224, 1241 (D. Wyo. 2017). The Department and the WSH are agencies of the State of Wyoming. The suit against Paul Mullenax in his official capacity......
-
Ramirez v. Martinez
...judgment on the pleadings is the same standard applied in considering a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6)." Rigler v. Lampert, 248 F. Supp. 3d 1224, 1231 (D. Wyo. 2017) (citing Nelson v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 419 F.3d 1117, 1118 (10th Cir. 2005); Fleming v. Coulter, 573 F. App......