White v. LaBelle et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA
NORTHERN DIVISION ■fiSCsC"'
DION WHITE,
Plaintiff,
vs.
JOANN LABELLE, Nurse, and JAMES
FOSTER, Jail Administrator,
Defendants.
1:22-CV-01007-CBK
MEMORANDUM OPINION
AND ORDER
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.
Case 1:22-cv-01007-CBK Document 28 Filed 01/10/23 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: <pageID>

aims
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
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 2 of 4 PageID #: <pageID>

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 3 of 4 PageID #: <pageID>

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
Case 1:22-cv-01007-CBK Document 28 Filed 01/10/23 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: <pageID>