United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Terre Haute Division
ENTRY GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS
JANE MAGNUS-STINSON, CHIEF JUDGE.
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.
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)).
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.
Relevant Allegations in the Amended Complaint
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.
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.
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. Issues related to the treatment for his
colon cancer and pain management are ongoing.
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 ...