United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Fort Worth Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
for consideration in the above-captioned action the motion of
defendant, Dr. John Mills,  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.
and the Motion to Dismiss
live pleading is his amended complaint. In it, he alleged:
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." 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
Id. at 4-5, ¶ 8.
plaintiff's amended complaint made no mention of the
damages sought by plaintiff, plaintiff's original
complaint sought monetary damages.
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.
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
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