Johnson v. University of Arkansas Medical Sciences Police Department
This text of Johnson v. University of Arkansas Medical Sciences Police Department (Johnson v. University of Arkansas Medical Sciences Police Department) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Arkansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS CENTRAL DIVISION
MARVIN JOHNSON PLAINTIFF
V. 4:23CV00455 JM
UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS FOR MEDICAL SCIENCES POLICE DEPARTMENT, ET AL. DEFENDANTS
ORDER Pending is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff has failed to respond. For the following reasons, the Motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff, Marvin Johnson, raises several claims against Separate Defendants, the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences Police Department (UAMS PD) and the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences Hospital (Hospital), under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA). His complaint must be dismissed for several reasons. First, UAMS PD and Hospital are not proper parties to the lawsuit as they are not legal entities capable of being sued. Assaad-Faltas v. University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, 708 F.Supp. 1026 (E.D. Ark. 1989), aff’d 902 F.2d 1572 (8th Cir. 1990). Second, Plaintiff was ordered to serve the Complaint on all Defendants. He only served copies of Document 2-1 which is the Order requiring Plaintiff to serve the summonses and Complaint on Defendants. 1 Therefore, his Complaint must be dismissed pursuant to Rules 12(b)(4) and 12(b)(5) of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedures. Third, even if Separate Defendants were proper parties, they are state entities and are immune from suit under § 1983. See Monroe v. Ark. State Univ., 495 F.3d 591, 594 (8th Cir. 2007); Will v. Michigan Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 70-71 (1989). Fourth, Separate Defendants are not proper parties to an EMTALA lawsuit for the
1 Defendants Sean Barber and Collin Bierle were not served at all. same reason: they are immune from suit. See Pitcock v. State, 121 S.W. 742 (Ark. 1909); Washington County v. Bd. of Trs., 480 S.W. 3d 173 (Ark. 2016). Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 10) is GRANTED. The Clerk is directed to close the case. IT IS SO ORDERED this 11" day of October, 2023.
United States District Judge
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Johnson v. University of Arkansas Medical Sciences Police Department, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/johnson-v-university-of-arkansas-medical-sciences-police-department-ared-2023.