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.

Neidige v. Corizon Inc.

United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Terre Haute Division

February 7, 2017

GARY NEIDIGE, Plaintiff,
v.
CORIZON INC., et al. Defendants.

          ENTRY GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS

          HON. JANE MAGNUS-STINSON, CHIEF JUDGE.

         Defendant Superintendent Richard Brown moves to dismiss Plaintiff Gary Neidige's Eighth Amendment medical claim and state-law negligence claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Superintendent Brown's motion is fully briefed. For the reasons explained, Superintendent Brown's motion to dismiss [dkt. 28] is granted.

         I.

         Legal Standard

         Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) “requires only ‘a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.'” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 8(a)(2)). “Specific facts are not necessary, the statement need only ‘give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.'” Id. (quoting Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)).

         A motion to dismiss asks whether the complaint “contain[s] sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). In reviewing the sufficiency of a complaint, the Court must accept all well-pled facts as true and draw all permissible inferences in favor of the plaintiff. See Active Disposal, Inc. v. City of Darien, 635 F.3d 883, 886 (7th Cir. 2011). The Court will not accept legal conclusions or conclusory allegations as sufficient to state a claim for relief. See McCauley v. City of Chicago, 671 F.3d 611, 617 (7th Cir. 2011). Factual allegations must plausibly state an entitlement to relief “to a degree that rises above the speculative level.” Munson v. Gaetz, 673 F.3d 630, 633 (7th Cir. 2012). This plausibility determination is “a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense.” Id.

         II.

         Discussion

         A. Relevant Allegations in the Amended Complaint

         The factual allegations contained in the Amended Complaint necessary to decide this motion are brief and, as required by the legal standard, are taken as true for the purposes of this motion. Mr. Neidige was an inmate at Wabash Valley Correctional Facility (“Wabash Valley”) during all times relevant to his claims.

         In September 2013, Mr. Neidige complained to medical staff at Wabash Valley regarding sharp pain in his abdomen. For the next year, Mr. Neidige consistently complained to medical staff of abdominal pain, rectal pain, and passing blood. He was primarily treated for hemorrhoids. Eventually, in September and October 2014, Mr. Neidige was diagnosed with a swollen prostate and had a colonoscopy. After multiple biopsies, Mr. Neidige was diagnosed with colon cancer that was terminal and inoperable. Mr. Neidige was treated by several medical care providers at Wabash Valley during this time, many of whom are defendants in this action.

         Mr. Neidige's pain continued over the next two years, leading him to file several more healthcare requests. In the midst of this, and while he was otherwise submitting numerous health care requests, Mr. Neidige reached out to Superintendent Brown about his medical problems. He alleges that Superintendent Brown failed to “tak[e] heed [of] the Plaintiff's complaints when the Plaintiff informed him of the negligence going on in the Medical Department he has a duty to oversee and check.” Filing No. 12 at 4. Specifically, the plaintiff asserts that he sent Superintendent Brown a letter on September 3, 2015, “informing Supt. Brown of his diagnosis, that ‘the doctors deliberately mistreated [him] and/or were negligent to [his] pleas, ' and that ‘[a]ll he want[s] is to be treated appropriately.'” Filing No. 40 at 4.[1] Issues related to the treatment for his colon cancer and pain management are ongoing.

         B. Analysis

         The Court addresses in this Entry only those claims brought against Superintendent Brown. He contends that both Mr. Neidige's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim and his state-law negligence claim fail to state a ...


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.