White v. LaBelle et al, No. 1:2022cv01007 - Document 28 (D.S.D. 2023)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part 26 Motion to Amend/Correct. Signed by U.S. District Judge Charles B. Kornmann on 1/4/2023. (Mailed to Dion White) (JLS)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
White v. LaBelle et al Doc. 28 Case 1:22-cv-01007-CBK Document 28 Filed 01/10/23 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 129 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA NORTHERN DIVISION DION WHITE, fiSCsC"' 1:22-CV-01007-CBK Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM OPINION vs. AND ORDER JOANN LABELLE, Nurse, and JAMES FOSTER, Jail Administrator, Defendants. Plaintiff is a pretrial detainee at the Codington County Jail in Watertown, South Dakota. He filed apro se complaint against defendant LaBelle and the Roberts County Jail alleging that he was prescribed hydrocodone for chronic back pain due to bulging and herniated discs, that Nurse LaBelle denied giving plaintiff his prescribed medication, and that denial of his prescribed medication was in violation of the Eighth Amendment, quoting Estelle v. Gamble. 429 U.S. 97. Iconducted an initial reviJw of the complaint and determined that, construing plaintiffs complaint liberally, plaintiffs complaint claims defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical ileed in violation of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Prior to service of the complaint, plaintiff filed a purported amended compl aint whichIconstrued as a motion to add defendant Foster as a party defendant. Igranted the motion to add party and allowed the amended complaint naming all three defendants. Following service of the amended complaint, defendant LaBelle and Foster filed an answer and defendant Roberts County Jail filed a motion to dismiss. Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed defendant Roberts County Jail. Dockets.Justia.com Case 1:22-cv-01007-CBK Document 28 Filed 01/10/23 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 130 Plaintiff has filed a second motion to amend the complaint. Defendants bontend the amended complaint would be subject to dismissal for failure to state a claim and the amended complaint should be rejected. In plaintiffs original complaint against defendant LaBelle and the amendment filed in conjunction with the addition of defendant Foster, plaintiff claimed that defendants violated his rights under the Eighth Amendment, applicable to pretrial detainees under the 14th Amendment, by deliberate indifference to his medical Jeed for his prescribed pain medication. Although plaintiff set forth on the Civil Rights Complaint by a Prisoner, form DSD 01-11, that he was alleging two counts, his c aims under both counts were the same. In the present proposed amended complaint, allo filed on the civil rights complaint form, plaintiff restated his claim that defendant LaBelle violated his rights under the Eighth and 14th Amendments by failing and refusing to give plaintiff his prescribed pain medication. Plaintiff more clearly asserted that defendant Foster violated plaintiffs rights by creating and maintaining oppressive policies that resulted in the constitutional violations alleged. Defendants contend that plaintiffs proposed amended complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted as to Estelle v. Gamble deliberate indifference 1 claims. Defendants did not move to dismiss such claims in the original complaint but instead filed an answer to those claims. I found,upon initial review,that the initial Iro se pleadings did plausibly allege such claims and I fmd that the proposed amended complaint alleges such claims. I reject any attempt by defendants to now seek dismissal ofsuch claims when they have already answered such claims. Plaintiff purports to add an additional claim stating that, under the 14th Amendment, no person may "deny to any person ... equal protection." Other than the title ofthis new claim, there are no new allegations as to defendants' acts or omissioJs toward plaintiff. Plaintiffs "obligation to provide the grounds of his entitlement to relief requires more than labels and conclusions." Bell Atl. Com,v. Twomblv. 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1964-65, 167 L.Ed.2d 929(2007)(internal quotatioris removed). Even under a liberal construction, plaintiff has failed to allege an equal i Case 1:22-cv-01007-CBK Document 28 Filed 01/10/23 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 131 protection claim in his requested second amended complaint. Plaintiff nowhere alleges that he was a member of a protected class and was treated differently than a similarly situated pretrial detainee. See Phillips v. Norris. 320 F.3d 844, 848(8th Cir. 2003); Murphy v. Missouri Dep't of Corr.. 372 F.3d 979,984(8th Cir. 2004). Plaintiff purports to add an additional claim titled "Badmen Clause." He contends that defendants inflicted pain and suffering to an "Indian of a signatory Treaty Tribe" in "Indian Country on a(sic)Indian Reservation." The "Bad Men Clauie," or clauses, ofthe 1868 Treaty ofFt. Laramie, Art. I, provide: If bad men among the whites, or among other people subject to the authority of the United States, shall commit any wrong upon the person or property ofthe Indians, the United States will, upon proof made to the agent and forwarded to the commissioner ofIndian affairs at Washington city, proceed at once tojcause the offender to be arrested and punished according to the laws ofthe United States, and also reimburse the injured person for the loss sustained. If bad men among the Indians shall commit a wrong or depredation upon the person or property of any one, white, black, or Indian, subject to the autho rity of the United States and at peace therewith, the Indians herein named solemnly agree that they will, upon proof made to their agent and notice by him, deliver up the wrohg-doer to the United States, to be tried and punished according to its laws. And in case they wilfiilly refuse so to do,the person injured shall be reimbursed for his loss from the annuities or other moneys due or to become due to them under this or other treaties made with the United States. And the president, on advising with the commissioner ofIndian affairs, shall prescribe rules and regulations for ascertaining damages under the provisions ofthis article as in his judgment may be proper. But no one sustaining loss while violating the provisions ofthis treaty or the laws ofthe United States shall be reimbursed therefor. | Plaintiff has failed to state a claim under the Ft. Laramie Treaty. That treaty was entered into between the United States and various Indian Tribes. ReimbursementIto an Indian requires that some person under the authority ofthe United States committed a criminal act against an Indian. Plaintiffs proposed amended complaint nowhere alleges that plaintiff is an Indian, that any defendant was acting under federal authority, or that any defendant committed a criminal act. Further, any claims against the federal government must be adjudicated in the Court of Claims. Case 1:22-cv-01007-CBK Document 28 Filed 01/10/23 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: 132 Plaintiffs motion to amend his complaint should be denied with one liniited exception. His original complaint and the amended complaint adding defendant Foster sufficiently allege that defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical need to receive his prescribed pain medication. His proposed amended complailnt alleges that defendant Foster violated plaintiffs rights by creating and maintaining oppressive policies that resulted in Foster's deliberate indifference. Such claim will be allowed. The proposed amended complaint's Equal Protection and Bad Men Clause claims fail to state a claim. "District courts can deny motions to amend when there are compelling reasons such as futility ofthe amendment." Silva v. Metro. Life Ins, Co., 762 F.3d 711,719(8th Cir. 2014). "Some examples offutile claims are ones that are duplicative or frivolous or claims that could not withstand a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6)." Id.(cleaned up). Now,therefore, IT IS ORDERED: 1. Plaintiffs motion. Doc. 26, to amend complaint is granted in part and denied in part. 2. Pages eight and nine ofDoc. 26 shall be filed by the Clerk of Courts as supplement to the complaint. No answer is required by defendants as to this supplement. 3. In all other resp^s, plaintiffs motion to amend complaint is denied. DATED this of January, 2023. BY THE COURT: CHARLES B. KORNMANN United States District Judge
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
