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.

Douthitt v. Mills

United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Fort Worth Division

April 3, 2018

BRANDON JAY DOUTHITT, Plaintiff,
v.
DR. JOHN MILLS, Defendant.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

          JOHN MCBRYDE, JUDGE

         Came on for consideration in the above-captioned action the motion of defendant, Dr. John Mills, [1] to dismiss the claim of plaintiff, Brandon Jay Douthitt, against him. And, having considered the motion, plaintiff's response thereto, the record, and the applicable legal authorities, the court finds that the motion should be granted.

         I.

         Background and the Motion to Dismiss

         Plaintiff's live pleading is his amended complaint. In it, he alleged:

         Plaintiff, an inmate at Tarrant County Jail, sustained a non-displaced fracture to his left fibula after being assaulted by another inmate on October 8, 2017. When he returned from the hospital to Tarrant County Jail, he was ordered medication and restrictions, including an order that he sleep in a bottom row bunk bed, but not "[p]roper housing to allow [him] access to a handicap accessible shower."[2] Doc. 8 at 1, ¶ 2. On October 12, 2017, plaintiff fell while taking a shower, causing further injury to himself. He appears to allege that had he been granted access to a handicap accessible shower, rather than "a white plastic chair with a trashbag [sic] over it that [he] had to manuever [sic] in and out of the shower, " id., that he would not have sustained such further injury. On October 16, 2018, plaintiff was treated by defendant, who evaluated him, ordered additional x-rays, and referred plaintiff to a pain management specialist. Based on these allegations, plaintiff brought a claim against defendant pursuant to § 1983 alleging that defendant was deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Plaintiff summarized his deliberate indifference claim against defendant as follows:

[After] being advised that I fell and re-injured by foot, Dr. John Mills knew that I faced a substantial risk of serious harm, by the action of slipping and falling if I did not have access to a handicap accessible shower. Being confirmed by x-rays that further injury took place Dr. John Mills failed personally to take any reasonable measures to prevent further injury.

Id. at 4-5, ¶ 8.

         Although plaintiff's amended complaint made no mention of the damages sought by plaintiff, plaintiff's original complaint sought monetary damages.

         Defendant moved to dismiss the deliberate indifference claim brought against him on the grounds that (1) any claim against him in his official capacity is barred by sovereign immunity, and (2) to the extent that he is being sued in his individual capacity, plaintiff has failed to state a claim.

         III.

         Applicable Pleading Standard

         Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides, in a general way, the applicable standard of pleading. It requires that a complaint contain "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 give the defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests, " Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (internal quotation marks and ellipsis omitted). Although a complaint need not contain detailed factual allegations, the "showing" contemplated by Rule 8 requires the plaintiff to do more than simply allege legal conclusions or recite the elements of a cause of action. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 & n.3. Thus, while a court must accept all of the factual allegations in the complaint as true, it need not credit bare legal conclusions that are unsupported by any factual underpinnings. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009) ("While legal conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they must be supported by factual allegations.").

         Moreover, to survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6), the facts pleaded must allow the court to infer that the plaintiff's right to relief is plausible. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. To allege a plausible right to relief, the facts pleaded must suggest liability; allegations that are merely consistent with unlawful conduct are insufficient. Id. In other words, where the facts pleaded do no more than permit the court to infer the possibility of misconduct, the complaint has not shown that the pleader is entitled to relief. Id. at 679. "Determining whether a complaint states ...


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.