Wesley v. Armor Correctional Health Services Inc
2:19-cv-00918
E.D. Wis.Jun 1, 2021Background:
- Plaintiff Omar H. Wesley (by next friend Brenda Wesley) sued Milwaukee County, Armor Correctional Health Services, and various individuals alleging failure to provide prescribed antipsychotic medications while jailed at the Milwaukee County Criminal Justice Facility.
- After earlier dismissals, Wesley filed an amended complaint asserting Eighth/Fourteenth Amendment deliberate-indifference claims, a Monell claim against Milwaukee County and Armor, and state-law negligence and disability-discrimination claims.
- County Defendants (Milwaukee County, Major Nancy Evans, Deputy Inspector Kevin Nyklewicz, and Wisconsin County Mutual Insurance Corp.) moved for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c).
- The court applied the Twombly/Iqbal plausibility standard (12(c) = 12(b)(6)) and found Wesley pleaded detailed instances of missed medication and alleged county policies/practices and failures to supervise/train that plausibly support a Monell claim against Milwaukee County.
- The court dismissed official-capacity claims against Evans and Nyklewicz as redundant (without prejudice) and dismissed Wesley’s state-law negligence claims against the County Defendants for failure to comply with Wis. Stat. §893.80 (with prejudice).
- The court declined to dismiss Wisconsin County Mutual Insurance Corp., finding the insurer remains a proper defendant given the surviving Monell claim and Wisconsin indemnity/direct-action statutes.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of Monell claim against Milwaukee County | Wesley alleges an official policy/practice and failures to supervise/train that caused denial of psychotropic meds | County says the amended complaint lacks sufficient facts to state a Monell claim | Denied dismissal; Monell claim plausibly pleaded against Milwaukee County |
| Official-capacity claims against Evans and Nyklewicz | Wesley does not oppose dismissal of redundant official-capacity claims if county remains | County argues those official-capacity claims are redundant | Dismissed without prejudice as superfluous parties |
| State-law negligence claims (notice under Wis. Stat. §893.80) | Wesley conceded he failed to satisfy the statutory notice requirement | County moved to dismiss state-law claims for failure to comply | State-law negligence claims dismissed (with prejudice) |
| Dismissal of insurer (Wisconsin County Mutual) | Insurer is proper defendant due to county indemnity obligations and direct-action statute | County sought dismissal because insurer is named solely as county’s insurer | Insurer remains as defendant; not dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. of New York, 436 U.S. 658 (U.S. 1978) (establishes municipal liability standard)
- Davis v. Carter, 452 F.3d 686 (7th Cir. 2006) (articulates Monell elements)
- Adams v. City of Indianapolis, 742 F.3d 720 (7th Cir. 2014) (Rule 12(c) governed by Rule 12(b)(6) standard)
- McCauley v. City of Chicago, 671 F.3d 611 (7th Cir. 2011) (discusses plausibility standard and excising legal conclusions)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (pleading standard under Twombly/Iqbal)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (pleading must raise claim above speculative level)
- Wagner v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., 840 F.3d 355 (7th Cir. 2016) (all reasonable inferences drawn for nonmovant on pleadings)