Davis v. Bruce

Full title: MARVIN B. DAVIS, Plaintiff, v. LOUIS E. BRUCE, et al., Defendants

Court: United States District Court, D. Kansas

Date published: Oct 4, 2007

CIVIL ACTION No. 00-3051-CM (D. Kan. Oct. 4, 2007)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION No. 00-3051-CM.

October 4, 2007

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

CARLOS MURGUIA, District Judge

This case is before the court on defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc. 182). Defendants Davis and Cummings, the only defendants remaining in the case, argue that they are entitled to judgment on the pleadings because (1) plaintiff failed to allege personal participation of defendant Cummings; and (2) plaintiff failed to show damages as a result of the allegedly retaliatory disciplinary report issued by defendant Davis. Defendants ask the court to review the Martinez report in determining whether judgment on the pleadings is appropriate. See Martinez v. Aaron, 570 F.2d 317 (10^th Cir. 1978). The court has not done so, as it would be improper in reviewing a motion for judgment on the pleadings. See Ketchum v. Cruz, 961 F.2d 916, 919-20 (10^th Cir. 1992).

At this stage of the proceedings, plaintiff has sufficiently alleged personal participation on the part of defendant Cummings and general damages that would include damages due to defendant Davis's allegedly retaliatory disciplinary report. He will, of course, later be required to prove that defendant Cummings personally participated and that his damages were caused by defendant Davis's disciplinary report, but plaintiff has met the "short and plain statement" standard of Rule 8.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc. 182) is denied.