# Betts v. Jackson County Missouri

> District Court, W.D. Missouri · March 1, 2022

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10242320

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, W.D. Missouri
- **Decided:** March 1, 2022
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10242320

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that causation is established where “the identified deficiency in a city’s training program [is] closely related to the ultimate injury”
- noting that a plaintiff may establish deliberate indifference or tacit authorization towards employee conduct if “the incidents occurred over a course of time”

## Opinion text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
WESTERN DIVISION

TRAVIS EUGENE BETTS, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) No. 4:21-cv-00023-DGK
)
JACKSON COUNTY, MISSOURI,
et al., )
)
Defendants. )
ORDER GRANTING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE
TO STATE A CLAIM
Beginning in April of 2020, Plaintiff Travis Eugene Betts was detained in the Jackson
County Detention Center (“JCDC”) awaiting trial. During his pretrial detention, three other
JCDC inmates assaulted Plaintiff in his cell. Plaintiff has brought this action against the
following defendants: (1) Jackson County, Missouri; (2) Diane Turner, Director of the Jackson
County Department of Corrections; (3) Captain Tony L. Bowers, a corrections officer and
supervisory captain at JCDC; (4) Officer Linton J. McKenzie, a corrections officer at JCDC; and
(5) “John Doe I and John Doe II,” two unnamed corrections officers at JCDC. Plaintiff asserts
various claims for violations of his Fourteenth Amendment rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 as well
as state-law tort claims.1
Now before the Court is Defendants’ Joint Motion to Dismiss for failure to state a claim.
ECF No. 14. For the reasons stated below, the motion is GRANTED IN PART.

1 Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims assert that Defendants violated Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment and Fourteenth
Amendment Rights. However, since Plaintiff was a pretrial detainee, the Fourteenth Amendment is the only
provision relevant to Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims. See Holden v. Hirner, 663 F.3d 336, 340–41 (8th Cir. 2011).
Standard of Review
A claim may be dismissed if it fails “to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). In ruling on a motion to dismiss, the Court “must accept as true all of
the complaint’s factual allegations and view them in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff[].”

Stodghill v. Wellston School Dist., 512 F.3d 472, 476 (8th Cir. 2008). However, “the Court is
not bound to accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation.” Warmington v.
Bd. of Regents of Univ. of Minn., 998 F.3d 789, 796 (8th Cir. 2021) (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)). To avoid dismissal, a complaint must include “enough facts to state a
claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570
(2007). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the
court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. The Plaintiff need not demonstrate the claim is probable, only that it is
more than just possible. Id.
In reviewing the complaint, the Court construes it liberally and draws all reasonable

inferences from the facts in Plaintiff’s favor. Monson v. Drug Enforcement Admin., 589 F.3d
952, 961 (8th Cir. 2009). The Court generally ignores materials outside the pleadings but may
consider materials that are part of the public record or materials that are necessarily embraced by
the pleadings. Miller v. Toxicology Lab. Inc., 688 F.3d 928, 931 (8th Cir. 2012). Matters
necessarily embraced by the pleadings include “matters incorporated by reference or integral to
the claim, items subject to judicial notice, matters of public record, orders, items appearing in the
record of the case, and exhibits attached to the complaint whose authenticity is unquestioned.”
Zean v. Fairview Health Servs., 858 F.3d 520, 526 (8th Cir. 2017) (quoting Miller, 688 F.3d at
931 n.3). Plaintiff has incorporated in the operative complaint an audit of JCDC which was
completed at the request of the Jackson County Legislature in September 2017 (“2017 Jail
Audit”). ECF No. 10-2. Among its findings, the 2017 Jail Audit concluded that JCDC was
overcrowded, had inadequate camera coverage, poor inmate supervision, and was understaffed.
Id. at 12–13, 15–16, 19. Defendant has also attached an assessment of JCDC conducted in 2018

at the request of Jackson County. ECF No. 10-5. Finally, Plaintiff attached the jail report of his
assault. ECF No. 10-8. The Court considers these documents in ruling on this motion to
dismiss.2
Factual Background
Plaintiff alleges the following facts, which the Court accepts as true for the purposes of
this motion: On or around April 8, 2020, Plaintiff was arrested and committed to JCDC for
pretrial detention. Am. Compl. ¶ 18, ECF No. 10. On or before June 1, 2020, Plaintiff was
moved to housing unit J6H on the sixth floor of JCDC.3 Id. ¶ 37.
Two other inmates, Treyvohn Covington and Logan England, were also housed on the
sixth floor at the same time as Plaintiff. Id. On multiple occasions, Inmates Covington and

England had each been able to physically access restricted areas, including the cells of other
JCDC inmates during times when inmates were prohibited from leaving their cells. Id. ¶¶ 70—
71. Inmates Covington and England were each confined in JCDC on charges relating to violent
felonies, and each had each been previously placed in disciplinary segregation for violently
attacking or fighting corrections officers and other inmates. Id. ¶¶ 30–35. When Inmates
Covington or England had engaged in any sort of physical altercation, the on-duty corrections

2 Plaintiff also attached a number of news articles, ECF Nos. 10-1, 10-3, 10-6, 10-7. The Court does not consider
these in ruling on this motion.

3 Plaintiff was housed in various housing units during his time at JCDC, and alleges that JCDC staff moved him a
number of times “due to overcrowding that was prevalent throughout JCDC.” Am. Compl. ¶ 36.
officers would prepare a “Departmental Report” which was then distributed throughout the chain
of command at JCDC. Id. ¶¶ 33, 35.
JCDC policies require on-duty corrections officers to conduct a well-being check every
twenty-nine minutes in order to ensure that inmates remain in their authorized locations and to

ensure the health and safety of the inmates. Id. ¶ 29.a. Corrections officers are also required to
ensure that cell door locking mechanisms are operational, and during well-being checks in the
evenings are required to ensure that cell door locking mechanisms are closed. Id. ¶ 29.b.
Corrections officers are also required to monitor surveillance cameras. Id. ¶ 29.
Despite JCDC policies, prior to June 1, 2020, well-being checks were often performed
only once every three to four hours. Id. ¶ 29. On occasion, JCDC corrections officers would
only perform one well-being check per day. Id. This was because JCDC was understaffed and
overcrowded throughout Plaintiff’s incarceration. Id. ¶¶ 48–49.
On the evening of June 1, 2020, Defendant Bowers was on duty as the supervising shift
administrator, and Defendant McKenzie and the defendants Does were on duty as corrections
officers.4 Id. ¶ 61. After all inmates were supposed to be locked in their cells, Inmates

Covington and England, along with one other inmate, exited their cells and began roaming
around JCDC5. Id. ¶¶ 38–39. Plaintiff has pled that the three inmates were able to leave their
cells either because corrections officers did not perform any well-being checks the evening of

4 A liberal construction of the Amended Complaint requires the Court to assume that Defendant Bowers maintained
duties as a corrections officer while also serving as a supervisor. Am. Compl. ¶ 6 (listing Defendant Bowers as a
corrections officer and supervisory captain); id. ¶ 28 (noting that Defendant Bowers was on duty as a corrections
officer during the relevant period and was required to monitor surveillance cameras); id. ¶ 61 (noting that Defendant
Bowers was on duty as the supervising shift administrator); id. ¶ 113 (“At all times in which Plaintiff was
incarcerated at JCDC, Defendant[] Bowers . . . had a ministerial duty to possess and use the same degree of care
ordinarily used by reasonable detention center authorities to properly oversee inmates and protect them from
unreasonable risks of harm . . . .”). See generally Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 664 (2009) (noting that a
complaint’s legal conclusions may serve to clarify a complaint’s framework).

5 It’s unclear from the Amended Complaint whether the three inmates were able to reach other floors.
June 1 or the morning of June 2, or, in the alternative, because corrections officers failed to lock
the three inmates’ cell doors during the evening well-being check,6 or, in the alternative, because
the cell door locks were faulty. Id. ¶ 57.
The three inmates roamed the detention center for over four hours and were not

discovered by corrections officers monitoring security cameras. Id. ¶ 59. The three then entered
housing unit J6H and proceeded to Plaintiff’s cell, which was likewise unlocked. Id. ¶ 56. They
then entered Plaintiff’s cell, drug him from bed, and beat him for forty minutes. Id. ¶¶ 60, 62.
On the morning of June 2, Defendant McKenzie found Plaintiff in his cell, along with the
three other inmates. Id. ¶ 62. Plaintiff’s head was bleeding profusely and he had a number of
other injuries. Id. ¶ 63. Defendant McKenzie did not provide first aid to Plaintiff, and did not
request immediate medical assistance. Id. ¶ 63.a. Defendant Bowers likewise did not request
medical assistance for Plaintiff. Id.
Procedural History
Plaintiff filed this action on January 13, 2021. Compl., ECF No. 1. He later requested

leave to file an Amended Complaint, which the Court granted. Order, ECF No. 9.
The Amended Complaint asserts the following 1983 claims: Failure to Protect against
Jackson County, Diane Turner in her official and personal capacity, Captain Tony L. Bowers in
his official and personal capacity; Officer Linton J. McKenzie in his official and personal
capacity; and John Doe I and John Doe II in their official and personal capacities, (Count I);
“Supervisory Monell Liability” against Jackson County, Defendant Turner in her official and
personal capacity, Defendant Bowers in his official and personal capacity, and the defendants

6 On the evening of June 1, Defendants Bowers, McKenzie, and the defendants Does performed—at most—a single
well-being check. See id. ¶ 56, 57. Likewise, on the morning of June 2, Defendants Bowers, McKenzie, and the
defendants Does performed—at most—a single well-being check. See id.
Does in their official and personal capacities, (Count II); Failure to Train, Supervise, and
Discipline against Jackson County, Defendant Turner in her official and personal capacity,
Defendant Bowers in his official and personal capacity, and the defendants Does in their official
and personal capacities, (Count III); and Failure to Provide Adequate Medical Care against

Jackson County, Defendant Bowers in his official and personal capacity, Defendant McKenzie in
his official and personal capacity, and the defendants Does in their official and personal
capacities (Count VI). Am. Compl.
Plaintiff also asserts the following negligence claims: a claim against Jackson County
based on premises liability, (Count IV); and a claim based on breach of ministerial duties against
Defendant Bowers in his official and personal capacity, Defendant McKenzie in his official and
personal capacity, and the defendants Does in their official and personal capacities (Count V).
Id.
Discussion
As a threshold matter, Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s claims should be dismissed

because Plaintiff’s complaint did not allege that he exhausted his administrative remedies as
required under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), 42 U.S.C. § 1991e.7 Because
Plaintiff is no longer incarcerated, he need not exhaust his administrative remedies.8 Nerness v.
Johnson, 401 F.3d 874, 876 (8th Cir. 2005). The Court now turns to the contents of the

7 It is not clear what administrative remedies a former inmate would have under the PLRA.

8 Plaintiff’s complaint did not state that he had been released from JCDC, though he stated as such in his response to
the instant motion. Suggestions in Opp’n at 14–15, ECF No. 16. Defendants do not dispute that he has been
released, but do argue that—since Plaintiff did not state in the Amended Complaint that he was no longer
incarcerated—the Amended Complaint should nonetheless be dismissed. Reply at 4–5, ECF No. 17. If the Court
were to dismiss the case on this basis, Plaintiff could simply refile a complaint identical to the Amended Complaint
in all but one respect. Such an exercise would only serve to delay a resolution of this case, and the Court declines to
dismiss the case on this basis.
Amended Complaint. For the reasons stated below, Defendants’ motion is GRANTED IN
PART.
I. John Doe Claims
Regarding Plaintiff’s claims against the defendants Does, fictitious parties generally may

not be named as defendants in a civil action. Phelps v. U.S. Fed. Gov’t, 15 F.3d 735, 738–39
(8th Cir. 1994); see also J.P. v. Doe I, No. 4:14-CV-1882-RWS, 2016 WL 4720456, at *3 (E.D.
Mo. Sept. 9, 2016). However, sua sponte9 dismissal of a John Doe claim “is proper only when it
appears that the true identity of the defendant cannot be learned through discovery or the court’s
intervention.” Munz v. Parr, 758 F.2d 1254, 1257 (8th Cir. 1985). This case was filed in
January of 2021, and Plaintiff—despite ample opportunity for discovery—has been unable to
determine the identity of the defendants Does. Because Plaintiff’s deadline to file an amended
complaint including the identity of the defendants Does was on October 4, 2021, Scheduling
Order, ECF No. 19, the Court concludes that Plaintiff is unable to determine the defendants
Does’ identity. All claims against the defendants Does are DISMISSED WITHOUT

PREJUDICE.
II. 1983 Claims
a. Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s 1983 claim against Defendants
Turner, Bowers, and McKenzie in their personal capacity for failure to
protect is DENIED (Count I).
Plaintiff’s first 1983 claim alleges that Defendants Turner, Bowers, and McKenzie—in
their personal capacity—failed to protect Plaintiff from being attacked by other inmates. Am.
Compl. ¶¶ 68–74. Defendants argue that Bowers, Turner, and McKenzie are entitled to qualified
immunity. Suggestions in Supp. at 11–13, ECF No. 15.

9 Defendants moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s various claims against the defendants Does on different grounds.
i. Plaintiff has alleged that Defendants Bowers, Turner, and McKenzie
violated his Fourteenth Amendment right to protection from violence
at the hands of other inmates.
Correctional officials have a duty to protect pretrial detainees from violence at the hands
of other prisoners. See Holden v. Hirner, 663 F.3d 336, 340–41 (8th Cir. 2011). “Pretrial
detainee § 1983 claims are analyzed under the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause,
rather than the Eighth Amendment prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment.” Id. at 341.
“This makes little difference as a practical matter, though: Pretrial detainees are entitled to the
same protection under the Fourteenth Amendment as imprisoned convicts receive under the
Eighth Amendment.” Kahle v. Leonard, 477 F.3d 544, 550 (8th Cir. 2007).
In order for a pretrial detainee to plead a Fourteenth Amendment claim for failure to
protect, he must allege (1) that he was incarcerated under conditions posing a substantial risk of
serious harm, and (2) that the defendant or defendants were “deliberately indifferent to the
substantial risk of serious harm.” Chavero-Linares v. Smith, 782 F.3d 1038, 1041 (8th Cir.
2015) (quotation omitted). To establish the second element, a plaintiff must allege that the

defendant or defendants “were aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a
substantial risk of serious harm exist[ed]” and that the defendant or defendants had drawn such
an inference. Id. (quoting Schoelch v. Mitchell, 625 F.3d 1041, 1046 (8th Cir. 2010)). Stated
another way, a plaintiff need allege that a jail official “acted or failed to act despite [his or her]
knowledge of a substantial risk of serious harm.” Nelson v. Shuffman, 603 F.3d 439, 447 (8th
Cir. 2010) (quoting Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 842 (1994)). “The question of whether
the official knew of the substantial risk is a factual one subject to demonstration in the usual
ways, including inference from circumstantial evidence.” Id. (quotation omitted). Further, “a
plaintiff is not required to allege and prove that the defendant . . . specifically knew about or
anticipated the precise source of the harm.” Id. (quotation omitted).
Plaintiff has pled that he was incarcerated under conditions posing a substantial risk of
serious harm. For example, he alleges that JCDC was overcrowded; that corrections officers

were consistently performing well-being checks only once every three to four hours and
sometimes would only conduct one well-being check per day; that corrections officers either
failed to lock cell doors or that locking mechanisms installed on cell doors did not prevent
inmates from leaving their cells and entering other cells; that violent inmates such as Covington
and England were therefore able to leave their cells and access the cells of other inmates; that
Inmates Covington and England had on several previous occasions obtained unauthorized access
to cells of other inmates in JCDC; that JCDC staff failed to monitor security cameras; that
inmates had interfered with security cameras to prevent transmission of video to monitors; that
portions of JCDC were out of view of security cameras; and that security cameras and monitors
were not functioning properly. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 28, 29, 30–33, 36, 38, 70, 71. Plaintiff has

therefore met the first element of his failure to protect claim against Defendants Turner, Bowers,
and McKenzie.
In regards to the second element, Plaintiff has also sufficiently alleged that Defendants
Turner, Bowers, and McKenzie were deliberately indifferent to this substantial risk of serious
harm.
Regarding Defendant Turner, the 2017 Jail Audit10 noted that JCDC was overcrowded,
had inadequate camera coverage, poor inmate supervision, and was understaffed. 2017 Jail

10 Defendants argue that the 2017 Jail Audit does not establish any of Plaintiff’s factual allegations since JCDC
could have fixed the issues identified in the audit before Plaintiff sustained his injuries in June of 2019. In order to
survive a motion to dismiss, Plaintiff need merely allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief. Bell
Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). Plaintiff does not bear the burden to show that the issues
Audit at 13, 19–20, ECF No. 10-2. Considering Defendant Turner’s position as Director of the
Jackson County Department of Corrections, the Court concludes that Plaintiff has sufficiently
alleged that Defendant Turner was privy to the findings of the 2017 Jail Audit and had inferred
that inmates were under substantial risk of serious harm. See Lenz v. Wade, 490 F.3d 991, 995

(8th Cir. 2007) (“An obvious risk of a harm justifies an inference a prison official subjectively
disregarded a substantial risk of serious harm to the inmates”).
Plaintiff has also sufficiently alleged that Defendants Bowers and McKenzie were
deliberately indifferent to the substantial risk of harm to inmates. The Amended Complaint
states that that Defendants Bowers and McKenzie were on duty on the sixth floor of JCDC the
night of June 1 and the morning of June 2, 2019, Am. Compl. ¶ 61; that they performed—at
most—a single well-being check the night of June 1 and a single well-being check the morning
of June 2, id. ¶¶ 56–57; and that they had knowledge that Inmate Covington and England had a
history of violent altercations with and attacks upon other inmates, id. ¶¶ 32–34. Plaintiff has
therefore alleged that they possessed knowledge of facts from which a reasonable person could

infer that a substantial risk of serious harm to inmates existed. Likewise, because they were
trained in JCDC policies, id. ¶ 29, Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged that Defendants Bowers and
McKenzie actually inferred that inmates were under a substantial risk of serious harm.
ii. Defendants Turner, Bowers, and McKenzie are not entitled to
qualified immunity on Plaintiff’s failure to protect claim.
Defendants argue they are entitled to qualified immunity in regards to Plaintiff’s Failure
to Protect Claim. Suggestions in Supp. at 11–12. “Qualified immunity shields a public official
from suit for civil damages when his ‘conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or

identified in the 2017 Jail Audit remained unsolved in June of 2020. Defendant bears this burden, and this would
properly be addressed on summary judgment or at trial.
constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’” Bernini v. City of St.
Paul, 665 F.3d 997, 1002 (8th Cir. 2012) (quoting Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818
(1982)). Granting a 12(b)(6) motion on the basis of the qualified immunity is only appropriate
“when the immunity is established on the face of the complaint,” Ulrich v. Pope Cty., 715 F.3d

1054, 1058 (8th Cir. 2013) (quotation omitted), meaning that the plaintiff “can prove no set of
facts in support of [his constitutional] claims which would entitle him to relief.” Cent. Airlines,
Inc. v. United States, 138 F.3d 333, 334 (8th Cir. 1998) (quotation omitted). To determine
whether Defendants Turner, Bowers, and McKenzie are entitled to qualified immunity, the Court
must determine (1) whether Plaintiff has alleged a deprivation of a constitutional right, and (2)
whether the right was clearly established. Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 232 (2009).
As the Court noted above, Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged that Defendants Turner,
Bowers, and McKenzie violated his Fourteenth Amendment rights by failing to protect him from
violence at the hands of other prisoners. Further, it has long been established that the Fourteenth
Amendment requires corrections officials to protect pretrial detainees from violence at the hands

of other inmates. See Holden v. Hirner, 663 F.3d 336, 340–41 (8th Cir. 2011); see also Walton
v. Dawson, 752 F.3d 1109, 1118 (8th Cir. 2014) (“There is no doubt the right at issue—a pretrial
detainee's right to be protected from sexual assault by another inmate—is clearly established.”);
id. at 1120 (“Detainees are most vulnerable when asleep, and the Constitution guarantees a
minimum right to sleep without legitimate fear of a nighttime assault by another detainee.”);
Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832 (1994) (applying the Eighth Amendment). The Court
concludes that immunity is not established on the face of Plaintiff’s complaint. Defendants’
motion is DENIED in regards to Plaintiff’s failure to protect claims against Defendants Turner,
Bowers, and McKenzie in their personal capacity.
b. Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s § 1983 claim for failure to protect
against Jackson County is DENIED (Count I).
Defendants next argue Plaintiff’s § 1983 failure to protect claim against Jackson County
should be dismissed because Plaintiff has not pled that the violation of his Fourteenth
Amendment right was caused by an official policy or custom. Suggestions in Supp. at 7–9.
To state a claim for relief against a local government under § 1983, Monell v. Dep’t of
Social Services requires a plaintiff plead a deprivation of federal constitutional or statutory rights
caused either by the execution of a “policy statement, regulation, or decision officially adopted
and promulgated by [the municipality’s] officers,” or by the municipality’s execution of a
custom “so permanent and well settled as to constitute a ‘custom or usage’ with the force of
law.” Monell v. Dep’t. of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 690–691 (1978). The Amended Complaint

asserts legal conclusions that Jackson County and Defendant Turner promulgated an official
policy of underpaying corrections officers, understaffing JCDC, and installing and using faulty
locking mechanisms, Am. Compl. ¶¶ 44–45, 51, ECF No. 10, but it makes no factual allegations
that such a policy existed. Plaintiff has nonetheless sufficiently alleged facts showing the
existence of an official custom whereby JCDC inmates were incarcerated without adequate
supervision and without the protection of adequate locking mechanisms.
In order to plead a deprivation resulting from an official custom, a plaintiff must allege
(1) the existence of a continuing, widespread, persistent pattern of
unconstitutional misconduct by the governmental entity’s employees; (2)
deliberate indifference to or tacit authorization of such conduct by the
governmental entity’s policymaking officials after notice to the officials of that
misconduct; and (3) that plaintiff was injured by acts pursuant to the
governmental entity’s custom, i.e., that the custom was a moving force behind the
constitutional violation.
Snider v. City of Cape Girardeau, 752 F.3d 1149, 1160 (8th Cir. 2014).
The Amended Complaint alleges facts showing the existence of a continuing, widespread
and persistent pattern of conduct whereby Jackson County employed an insufficient amount of
corrections officers and maintained camera coverage and locking mechanisms ineffective to
ensure inmate safety. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 23, 29; 2017 Jail Audit at 10, ECF No. 10-2 (“Staff said

there are routinely fights in the multipurpose rooms because of inadequate camera coverage.
During the last visit, an inmate reported that an inmate was beaten by three other inmates and
required medical attention.”); id. at 19 (recording observations consistent with poor inmate
supervision such as a large amount of graffiti in the housing units, inmates possessing extra
uniforms, poor sanitation, and that correction officers often exceeding the thirty-minute
maximum interval between well-being checks); id. (“During the first visit to the facility, the
auditor found one floor very crowded with 190 inmates, with only two staff.”).
Plaintiff has also alleged facts showing that Jackson County’s policymaking officials—
specifically the Jackson County Legislature and Defendant Turner—had notice of these failures
and yet were deliberately indifferent towards the risks posed to inmates: The Jackson County

Legislature requested the audit of JCDC in February 2017, and the contractor completed the
audit and submitted it to the Jackson County Legislature in September 2017. 2017 Jail Audit at
4. Plaintiff’s detention began in April 2020, yet he alleges that—nearly three years after the
contractor submitted the audit—JCDC remained understaffed, that camera coverage remained
inadequate, and that corrections officers still were not performing frequent well-being checks.
Am. Compl. ¶¶ 28–29; see Johnson v. Douglas Cty. Med. Dep’t, 725 F.3d 825, 829 (8th Cir.
2013) (noting that a plaintiff may establish deliberate indifference or tacit authorization towards
employee conduct if “the incidents occurred over a course of time”).
Finally, because Plaintiff’s alleged injury was a direct result of Jackson County’s custom
of understaffing JCDC, failing to supervise inmates, maintaining inadequate camera coverage
and inadequate locking mechanisms, Plaintiff has stated a 1983 claim for failure to protect
against Jackson County and against Defendants Turner, Bowers, and McKenzie in their official

capacities, and Defendants’ motion is DENIED in regard to these claims.
c. Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s § 1983 claim for failure to protect
against Defendants Turner, Bowers, and McKenzie in their official capacity
is GRANTED (Count I).
Defendants argue Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims against Defendants Turner, Bowers and
McKenzie in their official capacity should be dismissed because it is redundant of Plaintiff’s
Count I against Jackson County. Suggestions in Supp. at 19–20. “A suit against a government
officer in his official capacity is functionally equivalent to a suit against the employing
governmental entity.” Veatch v. Bartels Lutheran Home, 627 F.3d 1254, 1257 (8th Cir. 2010).
Because Plaintiff’s failure-to-protect claim against Defendants Turner, Bowers, and McKenzie in
their official capacities is functionally equivalent to Plaintiff’s failure-to-protect claim against
Jackson County, see id., Defendants’ motion is GRANTED. Count I against Defendants Turner,
Bowers, and McKenzie in their official capacity is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
d. Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims against Defendants
Turner and Bowers in their personal capacity for failure to train and failure
to supervise is DENIED (Count III).
Plaintiff also brings a § 1983 Claim against Defendants Turner and Bowers in their
personal capacity for failure to train and supervise subordinate correctional officers. Am.
Compl. ¶¶ 83–94. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Turner and Bowers violated Defendant’s
Fourteenth Amendment rights because they were aware that the corrections officers who they
supervised had engaged in “a widespread and persistent pattern of permitting inmates known to
be dangerous and threatening to other inmates” to gain access to unauthorized areas, including
the housing units and cells of other inmates, and that Defendants Turner and Bowers failed to
train, supervise, and discipline corrections officers to ensure that corrections officers would not
permit inmates to access unauthorized areas. Id. ¶¶ 84–88. Defendants argue that Turner and
Bowers are entitled to qualified immunity. Suggestions in Supp. at 11–13.

i. Plaintiff has alleged that Defendants Turner and Bowers violated his
Fourteenth Amendment right by failing to train subordinate
corrections officers.
“A supervisor's failure to train an inferior officer [gives rise] to individual liability under
§ 1983 if (1) the failure to train amounts to deliberate indifference to the rights of persons
[inmates], and (2) the alleged failure to train actually caused the constitutional deprivation.”
McGuire v. Cooper, 952 F.3d 918, 923 (8th Cir. 2020) (quotations omitted). In the context of a
failure-to-train claim, a supervisor demonstrates deliberate indifference when
in light of the duties assigned to specific officers or employees the need for more
or different training is so obvious, and the inadequacy so likely to result in the
violation of constitutional rights, that the [supervisor] can reasonably be said to
have been deliberately indifferent to the need. In other words, the plaintiff must
demonstrate that the [supervisor] had notice that its procedures were inadequate
and likely to result in a violation of constitutional rights.
Otey v. Marshall, 121 F.3d 1150, 1156 (8th Cir. 1997) (quoting Andrews v. Fowler, 98 F.3d
1069, 1076 (8th Cir. 1996)).
Plaintiff has sufficiently pled that Defendants Turner and Bowers knew that dangerous
inmates were able to gain access to the cells of other inmates and failed to train corrections
officers to prevent this from occurring. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 85, 87. Assaults upon other inmates are
likely where violent inmates are able to roam a jail freely, and the risk to Plaintiff’s
constitutional rights in such a situation is obvious. As such, Plaintiff has pled that Defendants
Turner and Bowers were deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff’s right to be free from attack.
Plaintiff has also pled that the attack was actually caused by Defendants Turner and
Bowers failure to train corrections officers. See City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378, 391
(1989) (holding that causation is established where “the identified deficiency in a city’s training
program [is] closely related to the ultimate injury”). As such, Plaintiff has sufficiently pled a

failure-to-train claim against Defendants Turner and Bowers.
ii. Plaintiff has alleged that Defendants Turner and Bowers violated his
Fourteenth Amendment right by failing to supervise subordinate
corrections officers.
In order to establish a claim for failure to supervise, a plaintiff must show that a
supervisor: “1) [r]eceived notice of a pattern of unconstitutional acts committed by subordinates;
2) [d]emonstrated deliberate indifference to or tacit authorization of the offensive acts; 3) [f]ailed
to take sufficient remedial action; and 4) that such failure proximately caused injury to [the
plaintiff].” McGuire, 952 F.3d at 922 (quotation omitted). In the context of a failure-to-
supervise claim, a supervisor demonstrates deliberate indifference when he or she has notice that
subordinates are not sufficiently supervised and that the lack of supervision is likely to result in
future constitutional violations. Brewington v. Keener, 902 F.3d 796, 803 (8th Cir. 2018).
Plaintiff has sufficiently pled all the elements of a failure-to-supervise claim. He alleges
that both Defendants Turner and Bowers knew that corrections officers were failing to protect
inmates from attack in their cells by other violent inmates. Am. Compl. ¶ 85. As the Court
noted above, the risk to inmates in such a situation is obvious, and Plaintiff has therefore pled
that Defendants Turner and Bowers were deliberately indifferent to the fact that corrections
officers were failing to protect inmates. Likewise, Plaintiff has pled that Defendants Turner and
Bowers failed to implement any additional supervision to ensure that future constitutional
violations would not occur. Id. ¶ 87. Finally, Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged that his injury was
actually and proximately caused by Defendants Turner and Bowers’ failure to ensure corrections
officers were preventing dangerous inmates from accessing the rooms of other inmates.
iii. Defendants Turner and Bowers are not entitled to qualified immunity.
As the Court noted above, Plaintiff’s failure-to-train and failure-to-supervise claims

allege a deprivation of a constitutional right. Further, as the Court noted in Section II.a.ii.,
Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment right to be protected from violence at the hands of other
inmates was clearly established. As such, Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s failure-to-
train and failure-to-supervise claims against Defendants Turner and Bowers in their personal
capacity is DENIED.
e. Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s 1983 claims against Jackson County
and for failure to train and failure to supervise is DENIED (Count III).
Defendants also argue that Plaintiff’s failure-to-train and failure-to-supervise claims
against Jackson County and Defendants Turner and Bowers in their official capacity should be
dismissed because Plaintiff has not pled that the violation of his Fourteenth Amendment right
was caused by an official policy or custom. Suggestions in Supp. at 7–9.
In the context of claims against a municipality for failure to supervise or failure to train
employees, municipal liability “requires proof that the failure ‘amounts to deliberate indifference
to the rights of persons with whom the [employee] come[s] into contact.’” S.M. v. Lincoln Cty.,
874 F.3d 581, 585 (8th Cir. 2017) (quoting City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378, 389 (1989)).
Deliberate indifference is shown where “in light of the duties assigned to specific officers or
employees the need for more or different training [or supervision] is so obvious, and the

inadequacy so likely to result in the violation of constitutional rights, that the policymakers of the
[municipality] can reasonably be said to have been deliberately indifferent to the need.” Id.
(quoting City of Canton, 489 U.S. at 390). In addition, the municipality’s inaction must be a
“moving force” behind the constitutional violation, id. (citation omitted), meaning that the
inaction actually caused the plaintiff’s injury. City of Canton, 489 U.S. at 379.
Defendant Turner, as Director of the Jackson County Department of Corrections, is a
policymaker for Jackson County. As the Court noted in Section II.d.i and ii, Plaintiff sufficiently

alleges that Defendant Turner demonstrated deliberate indifference because she had notice that
corrections officers were failing to prevent dangerous inmates from accessing the rooms of other
inmates and failed to implement any additional training or supervision over corrections officers
to prevent this from occurring. As the Court also noted, Plaintiff has also alleged that Defendant
Turner’s failure to implement additional training or supervision actually caused Plaintiff’s injury.
As such Plaintiff has sufficiently pled his failure-to-train and failure-to-supervise claims
against Jackson County and Defendants Turner and Bowers in their official capacity, and
Defendants’ motion to dismiss is DENIED in regards to these claims.
f. Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims against Defendants
Turner and Bowers in their official capacity for failure to train and failure to
supervise is GRANTED (Count III).
Defendants argue Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims against Defendants Turner and Bowers in
their official capacity should be dismissed because it is redundant of Plaintiff’s Count III against
Jackson County. Suggestions in Supp. at 19–20. Because Plaintiff’s failure-to-train and failure-
to-supervise claims against Defendants Turner and Bowers in their official capacities is
functionally equivalent to Plaintiff’s corresponding claims under Count III against Jackson
County, Defendants’ motion is GRANTED. Count III against Defendants Turner and Bowers in
their official capacities is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
g. Defendant’s Motion to dismiss in regard to Plaintiff’s Claim for
“Supervisory Monell Liability” against Jackson County and Defendants
Turner and Bowers in their official and personal capacities (Count II) is
GRANTED.
Count II asserts that Jackson County is liable under § 1983, along with Defendants
Turner and Bowers in their official and personal capacities, because they failed to train and
supervise subordinate corrections officers and failed to implement appropriate policies to ensure
that JCDC inmates were protected from serious harm. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 75–82. Defendant argues
that Plaintiff has failed to allege that Jackson County, Defendant Turner, or Defendant Bowers
undertook any conduct which violates a constitutional right, and therefore Defendant Bowers and
Turner are entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiff’s personal capacity claims. Suggestions in
Supp. at 11; Reply at 2–4, ECF No. 17. Defendants also argue that the claims against Jackson
County and Defendants Turner and Bowers in their official capacity should be dismissed for
failure to allege facts demonstrating municipal liability under Monell. Suggestions in Supp. at 7–
9, Reply at 1–2.
The claims contained in Count II are entirely duplicative of the claims contained in Count
III. However—except for paragraph 75, which incorporates all prior allegations in the Amended
Complaint—Count II contains no factual allegations. As the Court noted above, failure–to–train
and failure–to–supervise claims require Plaintiff to plead facts demonstrating a supervisor’s

deliberate indifference. While Plaintiff pled such facts in Count III, see Am. Compl. ¶¶ 85–87,
he did not do so in Count II. See id. ¶ 75 (incorporating only the “aforementioned” allegations
into Count II).
Defendants Bowers and Turner are therefore entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiff’s
Count II against them in their personal capacity,11 and these claims are DISMISSED. Because
Plaintiff has failed to state the existence of an underlying constitutional deprivation, his claims in
Count II against Jackson County and against Defendants Turner and Bowers in their official

capacity are also DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
h. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s claims against Jackson County and
Defendants Bowers and McKenzie in their official and personal capacity for
failure to provide adequate medical care (Count VI) is GRANTED.
Plaintiff’s final § 1983 claim asserts that Defendants Bowers and McKenzie, and Jackson
County as a result, violated Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment rights by failing to provide him
adequate medical care after he was attacked. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 122–27. Defendants argue Plaintiff
has failed to allege sufficient facts to state a claim for denial of medical care. Suggestions in
Supp. at 21; Reply Br. at 6–7.
In order to state a claim for failure to provide adequate medical care, a plaintiff must
allege deliberate indifference, meaning that he “suffered from an objectively serious medical
need and [jail] officials actually knew of, but deliberately disregarded, the need.” Nelson v.
Shuffman, 603 F.3d 439, 448 (8th Cir. 2010).
Plaintiff does allege that he sustained serious injuries during the attack, see Am. Compl. ¶
123, however Plaintiff includes no factual allegations that Defendants denied him medical care.
Plaintiff only alleges that “Defendant McKenzie failed to provide any first aid to Plaintiff,”
“request immediate medical assistance,” or “immediately notify the supervisor on duty,” and that
Defendant Bowers likewise never requested medical assistance. Am. Compl. ¶ 63. This is not

11 Defendant moved to dismiss on grounds of qualified immunity, not because Plaintiff failed to plead sufficient
facts to state a plausible claim for relief. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). Defendants are technically correct
that, at the motion to dismiss stage, they are entitled to qualified immunity where Plaintiff fails to allege a
deprivation of a constitutional right, though this is the same inquiry as is required under Twombly. See Pearson v.
Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 232 (2009) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)).
sufficient to state a § 1983 claim for failure to provide adequate medical care. Further, it appears
that Plaintiff was assessed by JCDC medical staff after the incident. Incident Report, Pl. Ex. 8,
ECF No. 10-8 (“The inmates [sic] was taken to J2 to be assess [sic] by HSU staff.”).
Plaintiff’s claims in Count VI against Defendants Turner and Bowers in their personal

capacity are DISMISSED. Because Plaintiff has failed to state the existence of an underlying
constitutional deprivation, his claims in Count VI against Jackson County and against
Defendants Turner and Bowers in their official capacity are also DISMISSED.
III. State Law Claims
a. Defendant Jackson County is not entitled to sovereign immunity on
Plaintiff’s premises liability claim (Count IV).
Plaintiff’s Count IV asserts a negligence claim based on premises liability against
Jackson County for failing to equip JCDC with adequate surveillance cameras and cell door
locks. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 95–110. Defendants argue that Jackson County is entitled to sovereign
immunity on this claim. Suggestions in Supp. at 9, 14–18.
Under Missouri Revised Statute § 537.600.1, public entities in Missouri are immune from
suit for their negligent acts. However, the Missouri General Assembly has waived this immunity
in a few limited circumstances,12 such as where a plaintiff’s injury is “caused by the condition of
a public entity's property,” and the plaintiff establishes

1) that the property was in dangerous condition at the time of the injury,
2) that the injury directly resulted from the dangerous condition,
3) that the dangerous condition created a reasonably foreseeable risk of harm
of the kind of injury which was incurred, and

12 Public entities in Missouri enjoy sovereign immunity except where an injury results from a public employee’s
negligent operation of a motor vehicle, Mo. Rev. Stat. § 537.600.1(1); where an injury results from a dangerous
condition on public property, § 537.600(2); and—to the extent of coverage—where the public entity has purchased
liability insurance. § 537.610. See also Wyman v. Missouri Dep’t of Mental Health, 376 S.W.3d 16, 19 (Mo. Ct.
App. 2012)
4) that either a negligent or wrongful act or omission of an employee of the
public entity within the course of his employment created the dangerous
condition or a public entity had actual or constructive notice of the
dangerous condition in sufficient time prior to the injury to have taken
measures to protect against the dangerous condition.
Mo. Rev. Stat. § 537.600.1 (2).
In order to plead the first element of the dangerous condition exception to sovereign
immunity, a plaintiff must plead “a specific property defect.” Bates v. State, 664 S.W.2d 563,
565 (Mo. Ct. App. 1983). “An intervening criminal act without any contributing property defect
is not enough.” Id. Defendants argue that Plaintiff “has not [pled] any facts alleging an actual
defective condition of the property.” Suggestions in Supp. at 15–16. Defendants misrepresent
the Amended Complaint. 13 Plaintiff pled that the three inmates were able to obtain access to his
cell because of faulty door locks and because of poor placement of security cameras and/or the
fact that security cameras and monitors were not working. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 28, 57.
Defendant next argues that Plaintiff has failed to plead that his injury “directly resulted”
from a dangerous condition because Inmates Covington and England and the unnamed inmate
were the actual cause of his injury. Defendant argues that “Missouri caselaw holds that when an
injury results from the intentional criminal conduct of another person and not the direct result of
the physical condition of the property then sovereign immunity is not waived.” Suggestions in
Supp. at 17.

13 A number of Defendants’ arguments in the instant motion incorrectly state the Amended Complaint does not
include a relevant factual allegation. See e.g., Suggestions in Supp. at 20–21 (“Specifically, in regard to [Defendant
Bowers], Plaintiff has failed to assert anything more than a threadbare factual recitation of a cause of action.
Plaintiff states that Defendant Bowers ‘approved’ a report written by another correctional officer and ‘without
further investigation distributed the report to third parties as accurate.’ It is unclear what possible cause of action
those facts lend themselves to . . . .” (citing Am. Compl. ¶ 64)). This is especially concerning since Defense
Counsel assures the Court that it has “combed through the Complaint,” Reply at 6, and thus Defense Counsel’s
numerous misrepresentations regarding the contents of the Amended Complaint cannot be written off to
inadvertence. Further, Defendants have consistently failed to cite to controlling law. In addition, many of
Defendants’ arguments—for example, Defendants’ argument regarding the PLRA, see supra note 4, and
Defendants’ argument that Plaintiff’s right to be protected from attack by other inmates was not clearly established,
see Section II.a.ii; Suggestions in Supp. at 11–12—are so absurd that the Court questions whether they were made in
good faith. Defense Counsel is warned that future misstatements of the record may result in sanctions.
Defendants do not point to any such Missouri caselaw, and research does not bear out
their assertion. In Thompson v. City of St. Joseph, an individual stole a vehicle and—while
driving impaired and in excess of the posted speed limit—drove two wheels into the ditch on the
right side of a two-lane road. 597 S.W.3d 687, 689 (Mo. Ct. App. 2019). The individual then

attempted to steer the vehicle leftward back onto the road. Id. In order to do this, the front
passenger tire had to clear a “severe” nine-inch drop at the edge of the roadway. Id. at 691–92.
The tire’s interaction with the drop caused a “slingshot reentry” whereby the vehicle took off to
the left very quickly. Id. The slingshot reentry resulted in the vehicle colliding with the
plaintiff’s vehicle, which was traveling in the other lane in the opposite direction. Id. at 689.
The plaintiff then sued the City of St. Joseph, alleging the nine-inch drop on the edge of the road
constituted a dangerous condition. The city argued—much like Jackson County does here—that
“all criminal actions preclude waiver of sovereign immunity.” Id. at 694. The court was not
persuaded by this argument, and held that an intervening cause, even a criminal act, “will not
preclude liability where it is itself a foreseeable and natural product of the original negligence.”

Id. at 692, 694.
Door locks and security cameras are installed in jails not only to keep inmates from
escaping, but also to protect inmates’ safety from attack by other inmates. In this case, the
assault on Plaintiff was a foreseeable and natural product of faulty door locks and of non-
working and poorly placed security cameras. As such, Plaintiff has sufficiently pled the second
element of a dangerous condition exception to Jackson County’s sovereign immunity.
Defendants’ motion with regards to Count IV is DENIED.
b. Defendants Bowers and McKenzie are entitled to sovereign immunity on
Plaintiff’s claim against them in their official capacities for breach of
ministerial duties (Count V).
Plaintiff’s Count V asserts a negligence claim against Defendants Bowers and McKenzie
in their official capacity based on the theory that Bowers and McKenzie breached their duties to
properly supervise and care for inmates. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 6–7, 111–121. Defendants argue that
Bowers and McKenzie are entitled to sovereign immunity on this claim. Suggestions in Supp. at
19–20.
Suits against state officials in their official capacity are treated as suits against the State.
Edwards v. McNeill, 894 S.W.2d 678, 682 (Mo. Ct. App. 1995) (citing Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S.
21, 25 (1991)). Plaintiff’s Count V against Bowers and McKenzie in their official capacity is
therefore treated as a claim against Jackson County. Because public entities such as Jackson
County are entitled to sovereign immunity from tort action, Mo. Rev. Stat. § 537.600.1, and
because Plaintiff’s official capacity claims in Count V do not fall within any of the exceptions to
sovereign immunity, see McIlvoy v. Sharp, 485, S.W.3d 367, 372 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016)

(dismissing tort claims brought by an inmate against a municipal correctional center),
Defendants’ motion is GRANTED in regards to Count V against Defendants Bowers and
McKenzie in their official capacities. These claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
c. Defendants Bowers and McKenzie are not entitled to official immunity on
Plaintiff’s claim against them in their personal capacities for breach of
ministerial duties (Count V).
Plaintiff’s Count V also asserts a negligence claim against Defendants Bowers and
McKenzie in their personal capacities based on the theory that Bowers and McKenzie breached
their duties to properly supervise and care for inmates. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 6–7, 111–121.
Defendants argue that Bowers and McKenzie are entitled to official immunity on this claim.
Suggestions in Supp. at 10–11; Reply at 3.
Official immunity is a doctrine created by Missouri courts to protect public officials from
liability for “alleged acts of ordinary negligence committed during the course of their official

duties for the performance of discretionary acts.” Southers v. City of Farmington, 263 S.W.3d
603, 610 (Mo. 2008). “The official immunity doctrine, however, does not provide public
employees immunity for torts committed when acting in a ministerial capacity.” Id. “Whether
an act is discretionary or ministerial depends on the degree of reason and judgment required to
perform the act.” Davis v. Lambert-St. Louis Int’l Airport, 193 S.W.3d 760, 763 (Mo. 2006)
(quotation omitted).
An act is discretionary when it requires the exercise of reason in the adaption of
means to an end, and discretion in determining how or whether an act should be
done or a course pursued. Conversely, a ministerial function is of a clerical nature
which a public officer is required to perform upon a given state of facts, in a
prescribed manner, in obedience to the mandate of legal authority, without regard
to his own judgment or opinion concerning the propriety of the act to be
performed.
Id. (citations and quotations omitted). The Court considers three factors to determine whether an
act is ministerial or discretionary: “(1) the nature of the duties; (2) how much policymaking or
professional expertise and judgment the act involves; and (3) the consequences of withholding
immunity.” Id. (quoting Kanangawa v. State ex rel. Freeman, 685 S.W.2d 831, 835 (Mo.
1985)). Defendants argue Plaintiff has pled no facts showing that Defendants Bowers or
McKenzie breached a ministerial duty. Suggestions in Supp. at 11. This argument is unavailing.
Plaintiff alleged that—in addition to his duties as a supervisor—Defendant Bowers
possessed a duty to monitor surveillance cameras, perform well-being checks every twenty-nine
minutes, and ensure that cell door locks were securely closed and functioning properly. Am.
Compl. ¶¶ 28, 29. Defendant McKenzie possessed the same duties. Id. These duties were
written in JCDC policies and neither McKenzie nor Bowers had discretion in whether to perform
them. See id. ¶ 29 (“JCDC policies prescribe that Defendants and/or corrections officer, while
on duty, shall . . . .” (emphasis added)). In Davis, a motorist sued a police officer who collided

with the motorist’s vehicle while driving to an emergency call. 193 S.W.3d at 762. The
Missouri Supreme Court held that “[i]mposing liability upon the officer in these cases might
delay responses to emergency calls, thereby adversely affecting officers or citizens in need of
emergency assistance.” Id. at 763. Unlike Davis, wherein the plaintiff sued the officer for
injuries sustained from the officer’s performance of his duties, Plaintiff here alleges he was
injured because Defendants Bowers and McKenzie—either out of apathy or because they were
too busy elsewhere in JCDC—failed to perform their duties. Imposing liability in this
circumstance therefore does not threaten to adversely impact corrections officers’ “exercise of
judgment and discretion.” Id. Instead, it will help to ensure that corrections officers undertake
some effort to protect inmates. See Letterman v. Does, 859 F.3d 1120, 1125–27 (8th Cir. 2017)

(denying official immunity where corrections officers had a duty to report a medical emergency
yet failed to do so).
As such, Defendants Bowers and McKenzie are not entitled to official immunity on
Count V against them in their personal capacities, and the motion is DENIED in regard to these
claims.
Conclusion
Defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim is GRANTED IN PART.
Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant John Doe I and John Doe II are DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE. Count I against Defendants Turner, Bowers, and McKenzie in their official
capacities is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Count II against all defendants is
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Count III against Defendants Turner and Bowers in
their official capacities is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Count V against Defendants
Bowers and McKenzie in their official capacities is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

Count VI against all Defendants is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: March 1, 2022 /s/ Greg Kays
GREG KAYS, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10242320. Public record. Not legal advice.