United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division
ENTRY GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS AND
DIRECTING ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT
William T. Lawrence, Judge.
second amended complaint alleges that the defendants violated
plaintiff Marshall Jackson's First Amendment Rights and
state law by failing to timely produce his medical records
when he requested them. The theory of liability is that
information contained in the medical records was necessary to
file a viable product liability action against AstraZeneca, a
third-party. The Commissioner of the Indiana Department of
Correction (DOC), Bruce Lemmon, and the Department Record
Coordinator, Scott Brenneke, seek dismissal of the complaint
for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted. For the reasons explained below, the defendants'
motion to dismiss, Dkt. No. 60, is granted.
Standard of Review
evaluating a motion to dismiss the court “takes all
well-pleaded allegations of the complaint as true and views
them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.”
Santiago v. Walls, 599 F.3d 749, 756 (7th Cir.
2010). Any legal conclusions pressed in the complaint are not
presumed to be true. See Bonte v. U.S. Bank, N.A.,
624 F.3d 461, 465 (7th Cir. 2010). In addition, orders
entered and filings made in this and other courts are subject
to judicial notice on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. See Wigod
v. Wells Fargo Bank, 673 F.3d 547, 556 (7th Cir. 2012)
(collecting cases). To satisfy the notice-pleading standard
of Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a
complaint must provide a “short and plain statement of
the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,
” which is sufficient to provide the defendant with
“fair notice” of the claim and its basis.
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (per
curiam) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550
U.S. 544, 555 (2007) and quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2)).
Moreover, a plaintiff can plead himself out of court by
pleading facts that show he has no legal claim. Atkins v.
City of Chicago, 631 F.3d 823, 832 (7th Cir. 2011).
filed this lawsuit on October 11, 2016, alleging that the
defendants' failure to timely produce his medical records
violated his First Amendment Rights. Jackson was not
incarcerated during this time period and this is not a case
where there was an actual barrier to filing a
14, 2017, Jackson filed a motion for leave to file an amended
complaint. That request was granted. See Dkt. No.
49. In addition, Jackson was given a further opportunity to
supplement his complaint with a factual basis for his
conclusion that he was denied access to the courts (or in his
words, “the courthouse doors are closed to the
claim”). The supplement was filed on July 17, 2017. In
response, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss. Jackson
responded and the defendants replied. In addition, Jackson
filed a motion to clarify statute of
limitations and motion for the court to take judicial
notice of related adjudicative facts. See Dkt. Nos.
68 and 71. These briefs were all considered in ruling on the
motion to dismiss.
allegations and facts in Jackson's amended complaint,
Dkt. No. 50, (as supplemented, Dkt. No. 57) are the
October 1, 2012, Jackson was released from the DOC. While
incarcerated Jackson was not told that he had kidney disease
and never had a biopsy done. At some point, Jackson learned
that he has kidney disease. He alleges that his kidney
disease is a result of ingesting Prilosec, a Proton Pump
Inhibitor (PPI) that had been prescribed by a prison doctor,
to treat his acid reflux disease.
are no allegations regarding when Jackson was prescribed
Prilosec or when he was diagnosed with kidney disease.
alleges that, “towards the end of sometime in 2016, the
plaintiff discovered that he had a claim against
AstraZeneca.” Dkt. No. 50 at ¶ 5. AstraZeneca
Pharmaceuticals LP is the company that allegedly manufactures
Prilosec. Jackson alleges that in 2014 warning labels were
added to Prilosec and that Prilosec is liable to him for
failing to adequately warn against the negative effects and
risks associated with ingesting this medication.
12, 2016, Jackson submitted a request to the DOC Central
Office for medical records in its possession. Specifically,
Jackson sought a copy of medical records for the time period
1988 through 1993.
7, 2016, a DOC attorney informed Jackson that the requested
medical records could not be produced. Similarly, a record
department employee told Jackson that the records could not
be located and were unavailable.
October 11, 2016, Jackson commenced this action alleging that
the defendants obstructed and deprived Jackson of his
constitutional right to access the court.
March 29, 2017, the DOC recovered Jackson's medical
records during an extensive warehouse inventory. On or about
March 30, 2017, Jackson was notified that the medical records
were located. Jackson agreed to accept a copy of his medical
records following a telephonic status conference on April 28,
10, 2017, Jackson received the requested medical records.
Upon review Jackson determined that the medical records did
not include the factual basis needed set forth a claim
against AstraZeneca consistent with Rule 8 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure. See Dkt. No. 57 at p. 2.
alleges that AstraZeneca has accepted responsibility for
failing to warn consumers about the dangers of their product
to kidneys. Jackson asserts that Prilosec has damaged one of
his kidneys. He is on dialysis treatment ...