Miller v. Cox

E.D. Arkansas

Miller v. Cox

DecidedSeptember 23, 2019

Docket3:19-cv-00260

StatusUnknown

This text of Miller v. Cox (Miller v. Cox) 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.

Bluebook

Miller v. Cox, (E.D. Ark. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS JONESBORO DIVISION

CHRISTOPHER MILLER, ADC #109083 PLAINTIFF

V. CASE NO. 3:19-CV-260-KGB-BD

SUSAN COX DEFENDANT

ORDER

Christopher Miller, an inmate at the Poinsett County Detention Center, filed this civil rights lawsuit without the help of a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Docket entry #2) He claims that Defendant Cox failed to provide him adequate medical treatment. Mr. Miller has stated a constitutional claim against Defendant Cox in her individual capacity, but he sued her in her official capacity only. Official-capacity claims against Defendant Cox are, in effect, claims against Poinsett County. Parrish v. Ball, 594 F.3d 993, 997 (8th Cir. 2010). Local governments can be held liable in cases such as this only when an employee violates a prisoner’s rights while carrying out a county policy or custom.1 Monell v. New York Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 694 (1978); Jenkins v. County of Hennepin, Minn., 557 F.3d 628, 632 (8th Cir. 2009). Here, Mr. Miller does not allege that he was injured as a result of a Poinsett County policy or custom.

1 For purposes of § 1983, a policy is a “deliberate choice of a guiding principle or procedure made by the municipal official who has final authority regarding such matters.” Marksmeier v. Davie, 622 F.3d 896, 902 (8th Cir. 2010). To establish a custom, a plaintiff must prove that the county engaged in a continuing pattern of unconstitutional misconduct, not just a single unconstitutional act. Id. at 902-903. Mr. Miller will have an opportunity to file an amended complaint to clarify whether he seeks to sue Defendant Cox in her official capacity, her individual capacity, or both. He has 30 days to file his amended complaint. His failure to comply with this Court’s order could result in the dismissal of his claims. Local Rule 5.5(c). IT IS SO ORDERED, this 23rd day of September, 2019.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS JONESBORO DIVISION

CHRISTOPHER MILLER, ADC #109083 PLAINTIFF

V. CASE NO. 3:19-CV-260-KGB-BD

SUSAN COX DEFENDANT

ORDER

Christopher Miller, an inmate at the Poinsett County Detention Center, filed this civil rights lawsuit without the help of a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Docket entry #2) He claims that Defendant Cox failed to provide him adequate medical treatment. Mr. Miller has stated a constitutional claim against Defendant Cox in her individual capacity, but he sued her in her official capacity only. Official-capacity claims against Defendant Cox are, in effect, claims against Poinsett County. Parrish v. Ball, 594 F.3d 993, 997 (8th Cir. 2010). Local governments can be held liable in cases such as this only when an employee violates a prisoner’s rights while carrying out a county policy or custom.1 Monell v. New York Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 694 (1978); Jenkins v. County of Hennepin, Minn., 557 F.3d 628, 632 (8th Cir. 2009). Here, Mr. Miller does not allege that he was injured as a result of a Poinsett County policy or custom.

1 For purposes of § 1983, a policy is a “deliberate choice of a guiding principle or procedure made by the municipal official who has final authority regarding such matters.” Marksmeier v. Davie, 622 F.3d 896, 902 (8th Cir. 2010). To establish a custom, a plaintiff must prove that the county engaged in a continuing pattern of unconstitutional misconduct, not just a single unconstitutional act. Id. at 902-903. Mr. Miller will have an opportunity to file an amended complaint to clarify whether he seeks to sue Defendant Cox in her official capacity, her individual capacity, or both. He has 30 days to file his amended complaint. His failure to comply with this Court’s order could result in the dismissal of his claims. Local Rule 5.5(c). IT IS SO ORDERED, this 23rd day of September, 2019.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Miller v. Cox, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/miller-v-cox-ared-2019.

Opinion

V. CASE NO. 3:19-CV-260-KGB-BD

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack