Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

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.

Moore v. United States

United States District Court, Seventh Circuit

July 3, 2013

JENELL B. MOORE, Plaintiff,


Michael J. Reagan United States District Judge

A. Introduction and Procedural Background

Sixteen months ago, Jenell Moore (incarcerated at FCI-Greenville, a federal correctional facility within this Judicial District) filed suit in this Court asserting negligence claims under 42 U.S.C. 1983. Moore seeks to recover monetary damages for leg/foot/ankle injuries sustained in July 2011 when he was ordered to assist a fellow inmate in moving a hot hazardous waste container in the Food Service Equipment Area of the prison kitchen.

On threshold review of the case under 28 U.S.C. 1915A (see Doc. 7), the undersigned District Judge construed Moore’s negligence claims as arising under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. 1346, 2671-2680 rather than Section 1983, [1] substituted the proper Defendant (the United States of America), and ordered service made on the USA. The Honorable Stephen C. Williams, U.S. Magistrate Judge, entered a Trial Practice Schedule. See Docs. 17, 18, 19.

In October 29, 2012, the USA moved to dismiss Moore’s complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted (Doc. 15). Specifically, the USA asserted that because Moore’s claim arose from a work-related injury while he was incarcerated, his exclusive remedy lies under the Inmate Accident Compensation Act, 18 U.S.C. 4126, et seq., warranting dismissal of this action. After obtaining an extension of time to oppose the USA’s motion, Moore filed a responsive memorandum on January 28, 2013.

Now before the Court is a Report and Recommendation (R&R) submitted by Magistrate Judge Williams on March 22, 2013 (Doc. 23). Plaintiff Moore secured an extension of the deadline by which to file objections to the R&R. The undersigned Judge extended the objection due-date twice, with objections due by June 7, 2010.

Moore signed his objections and placed them in the prison mail system on June 7, 2010; they reached the Clerk’s Office of this Court June 10, 2013 (Doc. 28).[2] The Court, giving Plaintiff the benefit of the “mailbox rule, ” will consider the objections to be timely-filed. The USA responded to the objections on June 21, 2013 (Doc. 29). The matter having been fully briefed, the Court now adopts the R&R for the reasons below-described.

B. Analysis

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)6) governs motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim. In deciding a 12(b)(6) motion, the district court’s task is to determine whether the complaint includes “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Khorrami v. Rolince, 539 F.3d 782, 788 (7th Cir. 2008), quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007). A complaint need not contain detailed factual allegations to meet this standard; but it must “go beyond mere labels and conclusions” and contain “enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” G&S Holdings, LLC v. Continental Casualty Co., 697 F.3d 534, 537-38 (7th Cir. 2012), citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. See also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 663-64 (2009).

“Even after Twombly, courts must still approach motions under Rule 12(b)(6) by ‘construing the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, accepting as true all well-pleaded facts alleged, and drawing all possible inferences in her favor.’” Hecker v. Deere & Co., 556 F.3d 575, 580 (7th Cir. 2009), cert. denied, 130 S.Ct. 1141 (2010), quoting Tamayo v. Blagoyevich, 526 F.3d 1074, 1081 (7th Cir. 2008).

Iqbal clarified two working principles underlying the Twombly decision. First, although the complaint's factual allegations are accepted as true at the pleading stage, allegations in the form of legal conclusions are insufficient to survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. Id. Accordingly, “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of the cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id. Second, the plausibility standard calls for a “context- specific” inquiry that requires the court “to draw on its judicial experience and common sense.” Id. at 679.

McReynolds v. Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc., 694 F.3d 873, 885 (7th Cir. 2012). So, in the instant case, this Court reviews the amended complaint, taking as true all well-pled factual allegations. After excising the allegations not accepted as true (legal conclusions), the Court must decide whether the remaining factual allegations plausibly suggest that Plaintiff Moore is entitled to relief. McCauley v. City of Chicago, 671 F.3d 611, 616 (7th Cir. 2011).

Bearing note is the fact that a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal motion “must be decided solely on the face of the complaint and any attachments that accompanied its filing.” Miller v. Herman, 600 F.3d 726, 733 (7th Cir. 2010), citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(c) and Segal v. Geisha NYC LLC, 517 F.3d 501, 504-05 (7th Cir. 2008). If, on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, matters outside the pleadings are presented to (and not excluded by) the court, the motion must be treated as a Rule 56 motion for summary judgment. General Insurance Co. of America v. Clark Mall Corp., 644 F.3d 375, 378 (7th Cir. 2011); Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(d).[3]

Of course, documents attached to the complaint and central to the claims are considered as part of the complaint itself and properly considered. See Arnett v. Webster, 658 F.3d 742, 746 (7th Cir. 2011). Accord Citadel Group, Ltd. v. WashingtonRegional Medical Center, 692 F.3d 580, 591 (7th Cir. 2012) (In deciding a 12(b)(6) motion, courts “may consider ...

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.