Desmond Arnez Mills v. Anne L. Precythe, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri reviews Desmond Arnez Mills’s amended 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint following remand from the Eighth Circuit. The court allows certain individual-capacity claims to proceed, including failure-to-protect claims against several correctional officers and a deliberate-indifference claim against Nurse Jane Roe, while dismissing claims against supervisory defendants, an investigative defendant, and all official-capacity defendants. The claims arise from an inmate assault and alleged inadequate medical treatment.

Holdings

1. Mills plausibly stated individual-capacity failure-to-protect claims against Unknown Berger, Unknown Bighorse, and Casey Motley because he alleged they knew Resz was out of bounds and disregarded the risk. The claims against Unknown Deaton, the investigator John Doe, and the supervisory defendants were dismissed; the claims against correctional-officer John Doe and Jane Doe were not dismissed at this screening stage.
2. Mills plausibly stated an individual-capacity Eighth Amendment claim against nurse Jane Roe, and the court ordered service after her identity is ascertained.
3. Mills failed to state individual-capacity claims against Precythe, Adams, Lewis, Freeman, Tandarich, and Wheeler, and those claims were dismissed without prejudice.
4. All official-capacity claims were dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim. Claims against Missouri Department of Corrections employees were treated as claims against a state agency, and claims involving Centurion employees lacked allegations of a policy, custom, or official action causing the injury.
5. Mills failed to state a § 1983 claim against Resz because the complaint did not allege that Resz acted under color of state law or jointly with state actors; the claim was dismissed without prejudice.
6. The court exercised supplemental jurisdiction over Mills's discernible state-law negligence or medical-negligence claims against Roe and battery claim against Resz.
7. The court denied Mills's discovery motions and motion to appoint counsel without prejudice.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Mills plausibly stated Eighth Amendment failure-to-protect claims against correctional officers based on alleged deliberate indifference to the risk posed by Resz.
2. Whether Mills plausibly stated an Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference claim against nurse Jane Roe based on the alleged failure to provide appropriate treatment for multiple stab wounds.
3. Whether Mills stated individual-capacity supervisory-liability claims against prison and contractor supervisors.
4. Whether Mills's official-capacity claims were barred or failed because they were claims against the State of Missouri or Centurion Health without an alleged policy, custom, or official action causing the injury.
5. Whether Mills stated a § 1983 claim against inmate Joseph Resz, a private actor.
6. Whether Mills's state-law negligence and battery claims fell within the court's supplemental jurisdiction.
7. Whether Mills's discovery motions and motion to appoint counsel should be granted before entry of a case-management order and commencement of discovery.

Disposition

other