Keeton v. Dudley et al, No. 3:2024cv00321 - Document 57 (E.D. Va. 2024)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge Robert E. Payne on 10/15/2024. (jenjones, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Keeton v. Dudley et al Doc. 57 IN THE UNITED FOR THE STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division BROOKE KEETON, Plaintiff, Civil V. JAMES ROANE Action No. 3;24-cv-321 DUDLEY, et al. , Defendants. MEMORANDUM This DISMISS matter is before PURSUANT TO RULE Defendants' BRIEF PLAINTIFFS' MEMORANDUM MOTION TO DISMISS IN IN (ECF No. set Court 12(B)(6) SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS for the reasons the OPINION on (ECF OF MOTION OPPOSITION TO Defendants' No. TO 36) (the DISMISS THE MOTION "MOTION"), (ECF No. OFFICER TO 37), DEFENDANTS' 41) , and Defendant's RESPONSE IN SUPPORT (ECF No. 46). Having reviewed the papers and forth below, the MOTION will be DENIED. BACKGROUND I. Procedural History On May 8, COMPLAINT Roane Epps"), 2024, (ECF No. Dudley, M.D. Plaintiff Brooke Keeton 1) seeking judgment ("Dr. EMT Brendan Farmer Dudley"), ("Keeton") filed the against Defendants James Nurse Angela Epps ("Nurse ("EMT Farmer"), RMA Savannah Shropshire Dockets.Justia.com { "RMA EMT Shropshire"), Louis Bermudez"), {"EMT Bermudez Correctional Officer Sigifredo Luna ("Officer Luna"), Correctional Officer Gabriel Loesel Yerby On ("Lt. Yerby") July 11, McKenney, I, 29) et al., and Lieutenant Michael on two counts under Section 42 U.S.C. 2024, ("FAC")(ECF No. ("Officer Loesel"), Keeton filed the First Amended § 1983. Complaint which added allegations regarding Thompson v. Civil Action No. 3:17cvl82 Va.). (E.D. In COUNT Keeton has alleged a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment for the failure to receive constitutionally adequate medical care as a pretrial detainee. On July 26, 2024, ("Officer Defendants") I of the FAC, as to Lt. Yerby, Officer Luna, filed the MOTION, the Officer and Officer Loesel and moved to dismiss COUNT Defendants, for failure to adequately plead that the Officer Defendants acted with deliberate indifference to Keeton's medical condition. The relief being sought by the MOTION pertains only to the Officer Defendants. II. Factual Background The relevant facts alleged in the FAC relating to the MOTION, taken in the interactions interactions confinement light between occurred most the in favorable Officer the to Keeton, Defendants relevant in Northern Neck Regional Jail and concern Keeton. backdrop ("NNRJ"), of the These Keeton's and how the staff at NNRJ reacted to and treated her medical emergencies. 2 a. Keeton and the Northern Neck Regional Jail On May 19, 2 022, arrested and booked No. f 29, 17). documented and used in On an intravenous into May intake "Percocet IV. ("IV") the Gloucester and her 20, 2022, record Id. day County due to a septic jail nurses Amy Jail, Gloucester that Keeton Keeton Id. had ^ Virginia. (ECF and Id. form was and correctional f 19. officers staff Marks history Carter County Jail to alleged to were NNRJ have been seriously ill Keeton and Carter alerted that she required medical attention, but the officials advised Keeton that she needed to through formal a medical request process. Id. request for the request forms went unanswered. Later performed that day. Keeton's Officer intake documented that Keeton was moving. Id. history of Luna, screening a f Id. 19. for NNRJ. go Keeton's H 19. correctional Id. officer, H 20. He injured or bleeding and had difficulty Although Keeton advised Officer Luna IV drug use, of H 18. Keeton alleges that she became infection. Jail Track "IV Keeton Id. were documented from Gloucester intake Carter, County had a 16. transmitted to NNRJ at the same time. Upon transfer, aunt, Gloucester County drug use. transferred later that and Keeton that she had a Officer Luna recorded that Keeton had no history of drug or alcohol abuse. Id. 21, 25. The notice given by Keeton notwithstanding. Officer Luna did not perform a Clinical Opiate Withdrawal Scale ("COWS") assessment, 3 which assesses risk of dangerous opiate withdrawal symptoms. Id. HH 23-24/ 26. A review of the have information prompted briefs deny the the same Luna Id. n That \\ severe of the concluded MOTION Gloucester that Keeton nor the records. County did would not require \\ severe 1 23. Keeton complained to EMT Farmer evening. back evaluation pain. of Id. n Keeton t or 30. EMT consult Farmer Dr. did Dudley. reported severe chest and back pain that Id. the even though he noted that Keeton was in medical attention, pain. Neither assessment. transmission Officer Moreover, from Gloucester County Jail transmitted that not Id. she had conduct Keeton evening to Nurse an also Epps. 11 32-33. For reasons neither explained nor readily apparent, Nurse Epps did vital signs, conduct or notify Dr. Keeton's became not unable Id. to walk. Officer debilitated drugs." Id. evaluation. state Id. and she Other inmates began taking 36-37. is alleged then to remarked: have observed That's why we Keeton's don't do H 38. a medical request walk Id. few days, On May 24, four days after admission to NNRJ, can't Keeton's such as carrying her around and showering Luna and take Dudley of the situation. condition worsened over the next care of her basic needs, her. a medical can't form, move[. ] form and took no action. in which she wrote n Id. Id. nil 39-40. >\ \\ Nurse I Keeton completed have Epps H 41. That same day. 4 chest pains received the Officer Loesel Failure issued a disciplinary offense against Keeton for as she could not stand up for count. count procedure Officer 44 . condition. Loesel Id. took Keeton's no action to alert condition worsened, medical to follow Id. H 42- staff of her she was defecating as herself and could no longer feed herself. Id. H 45. On May Keeton 25, submitted retrieve her medical records. entering NNRJ, RMA Id. Shropshire a request \ 47. form asking NNRJ That day, conducted a to five days after booking medical screening and noted Keeton's history of drug abuse and her chest pains. ^48. Id. However, assessment before RMA Shropshire did not perform a COWS sending Keeton back to general population. Id. 49-50. The screening found no evidence of a skin infection. Id. On May 28, from EMT Burmedez responded to a medical assistance request Keeton for severe chest pain. Id. t 53. EMT Bermudez Keeton brought to the medical unit and took her vital signs. EMT Burmedez stated reason denied Keeton's that he was request unable Burmedez sent medical treatment, Keeton back follow up, to Id. for pain medication for the to received anything during pm pill call." EMT had confirm Id. general if H 54. [Ms. Keeton] Consequently, population without or consulting with Dr. Dudley. any Id. ilH 54-55. Lt. Yerby issued two disciplinary charges against Keeton based on this event, Delay and Hinder. including Id. "Faking a Medical Emergency" It 56-57. 5 and On May 29, Keeton again was brought to the medical section at NNRJ after reporting she was not feeling well. Id. 61. Keeton reported to Nurse Allen that she used opiates, she was experiencing diarrhea, and she was hearing and seeing things. took Keeton's vital signs, which were elevated, COWS which found she was assessment of opiate withdrawal, Keeton, and then called Dr. On May 31, Nurse Allen then performed a experiencing mild who ordered Keeton Dudley, to be put on detox protocol for nine days. Id. Id. 60-63. EMT Farmer responded to Keeton for complaints of back pain, but EMT Farmer's notes inexplicably recorded that Keeton stated no complaints at that time" Id. up and acknowledged my presence. EMT Farmer physically evaluated Id. H 66. But, to inmate medications, after that, because she underwear, Keeton was was of back pain. he diaphoretic, Id. Nurse Allen took medical pictures, provided Id. bag. taken from her cell Keeton saw Nurse Allen, to and in septic and to have Id. 6 a 67. with Minutes Id. 1 soiled in feces. which revealed Keeton had Dr. transported to the hospital, shock, H tachypneic. Dudley examined Ms. Keeton and ordered she be sent to the hospital. be Keeton due the medical section who noted Keeton was developed a vicious decubitus ulcer. to signs. EMT Farmer reported that 68. Keeton was sitting or took her vital and a biohazard lethargic, "was f 66. There is no indication Keeton shortly thereafter, complaining and that Keeton Stage Id. where II H 69. she was found decubitus ulcer caused by prolonged immobility. Id. ^ 70. Two days later, Keeton was incapacitated and placed on life support. Id. H 71. The ulcer developed into a Stage IV sacral decubitus wound, requiring multiple surgeries. Id. H 72. She also eventually underwent a heart valve replacement endocarditis. Id. surgery to treat her septic infection and H 73. DISCUSSION I. Legal Standard a. \\ Rule A 12(b) (6) motion sufficiency of filed under a complaint, (4th Cir. 2009) 12(b)(6) challenges considered with Francis v. the facts alleged are true. 192 Rule (cleaned up) . the Court legal assumption that Giacomelli, The the 588 "must F.3d 186, accept the factual allegations of the complaint as true and construe them in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. LLC V. [t] o City of Rockville, survive a motion to sufficient factual matter, relief that U.S. 662, 544, 570 to is 678 plausible (2009) (2007)). dismiss F.3d 141, dismiss, [the Court] 145 a on its face. t (4th Cir. complaint accepted as true, (quoting Bell Atl. But, the complaint as true 891 Rockville Cars, H to must V. [it is] take all the contain Iqbal, v. Twombly, [a]Ithough for the purposes of must So 'state a claim to Ashcroft Corp. 2018). 556 550 U.S. [a] motion factual allegations in not bound to accept as true a legal 7 conclusion 478 U.S. couched as 265, 286 a factual (1986). allegation. Mere labels Papasan v. // and conclusions declaring that the plaintiff is entitled to relief are not enough. 550 U.S. some at 555. factual enhancement b. 588 within F.3d at 193 Deliberate Twombly, naked assertions of wrongdoing necessitate Thus, the complaint between possibility and plausibility of Giacomelli, Allairi; to cross entitlement to line the relief. {internal quotation marks omitted). Indifference The Fourth Circuit in Short v, Hartman recently adopted the growing approach that pretrial detainees can state a claim under the Fourteenth Amendment, for prison officials of harm. based on a purely objective deliberate 87 F.4th 593, 604-605 indifference (4th Cir. to 2023). standard, excessive risks Before Short, the Fourth Circuit had consistently applied Eighth Amendment caselaw, which used a combined objective and subjective test for deliberate indifference detainees Holler, was of under the 68 v. prisoners. 931 irreconcilable Hendrickson, {4th Cir. with 576 precedent of the Fourth Circuit indifference standard" claims was deemed to claims Fourteenth Amendment. F.4th 921, deemed Kingsley claims no the U.S. 2023). See, by e.g., However, Supreme 389 made Stevens v. this approach Court's (2015), pretrial decision and the in prior "applying a subjective deliberate to Fourteenth Amendment pretrial detainee longer tenable. (citations omitted). 8 Short, 87 F.4th 609-10 The Fourth Circuit's new approach to deliberate indifference by prison officials under the Fourteenth Amendment requires a pretrial detainee to plead that: (1) they had a medical condition or injury that posed a substantial risk of serious the (2) harm; defendant intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly acted or failed to act to appropriately address the risk that the condition posed; (3) the defendant knew or should have known (a) that the that the detainee had that condition and defendant's action or inaction posed unjustifiably high risk of harm; the detainee was V. Hartman, 87 Short and (4) (b) an as a result, harmed. F.4th at 611. The Short test differs from the prior subjective test in one meaningful aspect, [t]he that plaintiff no longer has to show that the defendant had actual knowledge of the detainee's serious medical condition and consciously disregarded the risk that their action or failure sufficient or or must show act would result was inaction that the was hurdles specifically // Id. should plaintiffs for medical needs to have tt Id. Now, it To prove that obj actively unreasonable, defendant for Id. harm. is the defendant's action objectively unreasonable. and that risk, and acted accordingly. presents in for the plaintiff to show that inaction action to // known of However, overcome, an the plaintiff that condition this test still including hurdles claims against non-medical prison officials. The objective element of the claim requires a condition. // Mays V. Sprinkle, 992 9 F.3d 295, 300 serious medical (4th Cir. 2021). A serious medical need is one either been diagnosed by 'that has a physician as mandating treatment or is so obvious that even a lay person would easily recognize the necessity for a doctor's attention. Va. Cir. 2023) / 706 F. Supp. Lapp V. United States, n (quoting Scinto v. F.3d 577 219, (E.D. 225 (4th 2016)) . Further, medical when a medical needs claim is brough against prison defendant: medical a official, plaintiff deliberately (2) performance, Craft, June 9, 2022) Cir. 1990)) . establish (3) or interfered tacitly indifferent to the prison physicians' Dallas V. must a non- that the failed promptly to provide an inmate with needed (1) care. doctors' II. 841 Stansberry, 3d 568, 2022 U.S. Dist. the authorized prison or were constitutional violations. LEXIS (quoting Miltier v. with 103750, Beorn, 896 at F.2d n *35 (E.D, Va. 848, 854 (4th ANALYSIS A. Pretrial COUNT I Detainee alleges Status that the Defendants, including the Officer Defendants, violated Keeton's constitutional right to be free from deliberately detention. indifferent Court detainee. care while agrees. At so arises under all Since Keeton was relevant >\ the times, pre-trial in Keeton brought this action under 42 U.S.C. claims her right to do The medical § 1983, and Fourteenth Amendment. Keeton was a pretrial a pretrial detainee and not a convicted 10 and not the Eighth Amendment, prisoner, the Fourteenth Amendment, governs [her] Cir. 2021) claim. Mays // V. Sprinkle, (quoting Martin v. Gentile, 992 F.3d 295, 300 849 F.2d 863, 870 (4th (4th Cir. as a pretrial detainee not convicted of any crime. 1988)) . Keeton, is protected under the Fourteenth Amendment from being subjected to "any form of punishment. must B. Keeton's To proceed Serious with adequately States, 706 F. that Keeton has, (internal Medical her allege Supp. Id. // serious 3d 568, omitted). Need deliberate a citations 577 indifference medical (E.D. Va. need. claim, Keeton v. United Lapp 2023). The Court finds for purposes of the motion to dismiss, adequately alleged facts establishing that Keeton had a serious medical need \\ obvious SO that even a lay person would necessity for a doctor's attention. at Id. easily recognize (quoting Scinto, the 841 F.3d 225) . The Officer Defendants contend that Keeton claim for deliberate indifference because the defecation, or of incontinence, inability cannot state a alleged conditions to move // are not alleged in a manner that would make it obvious to the Defendants that there was a serious based on the and viewed condition. allegations in the severely debilitated made consistent of light the most individual complaints of t! (ECF No. 37, p. 3-4) . However, FAC, which are favorable during severe 11 to her chest taken as Keeton, time at a whole she NNRJ. was a Keeton and back pain. made pleas various delusional, was for was unable take Keeton 5835310, \\ had would attention. pleas complained found defecating on herself, was care cleaning of basic These by other inmates. person assistance, needs such as of being to walk. unable or feeding and at points was openly carried around in a lawn chair herself, that medical readily help and Sept. complaints the 30, at a motion to dismiss, adequate to so obvious necessity for a a variety prong."); doctor's Inc., 2020) (finding that objective 2020 WL consistent of ailments Tharrington v. (W.D. Va. Sept. 20, 2018) (holding, that repeated complaints of falls, demonstrate that even a lay Health Servs., regarding // 2018 WL 4515899, at *8 related to surgery, the Armor Corr. (E.D. Va. are ... recognize Sams v. satisfies Virginia, medical need easily Id.; at *21 for a allegations and other health issues to establish a serious medical need). Indeed, n severe pain were adequate if proved, the facts respecting the seriousness of the condition would compel a verdict in her favor and might even warrant summary judgment against Officer B. the Defendants. Officer Defendants The Officer Defendants argue that Keeton has failed to state a claim as to each of the Officer Defendants, because the plaintiff IS required defendant, to demonstrate that each government-official through their own individual actions, Constitution. (ECF No. 46, P- 1 12 (citing has violated the Mallory v. Dorchesters County Dist. Detention Ct. 2024 Unit, 2024)). The U.S. Officer analysis does not end at the The Court must regarding each inactions) The Officer LEXIS Defendants as to whether there Defendant and each are For are Officer whether Officer purposes injured experiencing or {S.C. that the actions (or 87 F.4’^^ at 611.^ are sufficient, if Luna of the the MOTION, bleeding, "severe issues. treatment FAC alleges pain. Officer had Luna made on Keeton's behalf. Officer Luna made Id. no assessment for the intake Court will not address no 29, H attempt H 26. attempts screening. the First, difficulty (ECF No. n two relevant Officer Luna in which he noted that Keeton medications during the intake screening. ^ The *7 allegations their Short, Defendant conducted Keeton's intake screening, that correct adequate interactions between Keeton and Officer Luna. these at to warrant judgment against them individually. 1. was 87636 showing of a serious medical need. were objectively unreasonable. analyses proved, examine Dist. moving, 23). to Despite procure The FAC to ascertain was noting medical further alleges Id. H 22. Officer and In his written Luna Officer Defendants' Keeton's marked that argument that Keeton cannot establish the subjective prong of the deliberate indifference claim. (ECF No. 37, p. 6). As discussed above (supra, p. 8), the Fourth Circuit in Short jettisoned the subjective prong of the deliberate difference claim for pretrial detainees, and adopted the growing approach of only requiring the objective prong for claims brought under the Fourteenth Amendment. 13 Keeton was not in need of "medical attention ASAP, and recorded that Keeton had no history of drug or alcohol abuse, despite Keeton alleging that she expressly made Officer Luna aware of her history of IV drug use. Id. HH 21-25. And, Officer Luna is alleged to have had access to the information forwarded with Keeton from Gloucester County Jail. The interactions between Officer Luna solely confined to the intake screening. interaction with Keeton around May 23, and Keeton are not Officer Luna had another three days 2022, 38. At that time, Keeton performed the intake screening. Id. alleges debilitated and had other inmates that she was severely taking care of her basic needs. 35, after he with one inmate even carrying her around in a plastic lawn chair because she her <1H own power. observed her we don't do directly bespeaks As took that that a a 36-37. H 38. Officer Keeton summary of had Loesel to place Officer Loesel, on 24, Officer Loesel May the 2022. observed her Officer and remarked own notation history Officer 2. that Luna that's why That remark by Officer Luna goes no detainee. alleges state, Luna's vulnerable Officer Keeton debilitated Id. drugs. against assessment towards in Id. could not walk under of Luna's general relevant On that drug day, the intake abuse. callous interaction in a debilitated 14 in Keeton And, behavior with Keeton alleges condition. it in that which Id. she could not move or stand from her sleeping mat. t 42. That same day she had submitted a medical request form which stated: have chest pains despite Loesel, can't seeing walk can't Keeton in Id. move[.] this H run-down 40. state, "I Officer did not notify any medical staff of the issue nor did he take any action to procure medical treatment on Keeton's behalf. Id. ^ 43. Instead, Officer Loesel issued a "Disciplinary Offense Report, charged Keeton with "Failure to in which he follow count procedures" because she did not, and could not, stand up for count. Id. H 44 . In total. Officer more Loesel's behavior was as callous as Officer Lieutenant Yerby For Lt. 2024. Yerby, Early that the relevant morning, interaction occurred on May 28, Keeton requested medical because she was experiencing severe chest pains, that pain was radiating to her low back, legs, Keeton was brought to the medical unit, the medical and maybe so. 3. 53. Luna's, staff without sent her back rendering to her any medical cell assistance and she reported and hands. Id. H but upon examination without treatment. any medication Id. 54-55. Lt. Yerby issued Keeton two disciplinary charges based on her requests for medical assistance Specifically, and "Delay the and for charges Hinder. the were Id. t severe for 57. 15 chest Faking Like the pains. Id. If 56. a Medical Emergency behavior of Officer Luna and Officer Loesel, Lt. Yerby's treatment of Keeton was utterly callous. C. objective Unreasonableness of Officer Defendants The FAC Defendants' The FAC adequately actions while that each of the Officer {and inactions) were objectively unreasonable. allegations distress alleges show confined that in Keeton NNRJ and was at interacting with all of the Defendants. in the open times active and that she was (See discussion supra, pp. It is within the backdrop of an ongoing medical emergency 11-12) . that Keeton interacted with the Officer Defendants. Keeton alleges that 11 days passed while she was experiencing this ongoing medical emergency, prisoner and that this delay exacerbated her injuries. is showing outward signs of serious medical Where a distress, courts have found that even a brief delay in calling for medical assistance U.S. Dist. having an may constitute LEXIS 181799, open medical deliberate indifference. 2020 WL 5835310, emergency, and at *29. the Here, Officer Sams, 2020 Keeton was Defendants delayed the treatment that Keeton would eventually receive by never inquiring about or requesting medical treatment on her behalf. Further, that Keeton Officer was Luna facing was directly performed the intake screening. in a debilitated state, made aware from of the Keeton medical herself issues when he Officer Luna also observed Keeton and even made a remark about how drug use had led to her deteriorated condition. 16 Similarly, the actions of Officer Loesel and Lt. Yerby to issue disciplinary charges in the face of Keeton's medical emergencies, pains and being unable to stand, have known that Keeton was complaining of severe chest shows that they at least should experiencing a medical emergency. The allegations of the FAC make it plausible that Keeton had a serious medical need, Keeton's Officer Defendants knew or should have the serious medical need, and that delayed in facilitating medical care. LEXIS 103750 sufficient seriousness at where of "all his who open Officer observed Dist. indifference allegations [the and obvious Defendants 2022 U.S. See Dallas, (finding deliberate *37 the known of inmate] medical could condition see the and the plaintiff has alleged that these defendants at least delayed in facilitating medical care.") F. Supp. 2d 615, 652 (E.D. (cleaned up); Va. 2004) Brown v. Mitchell, (finding deliberate indifference where prisoner was sweating, vomiting, patrolling Therefore, guards the claim against would readily FAC each incoheren[t], took and virtually adequately states no action a a finding of issue of suffering from "heavy [unable] to in deliberate Officer Defendant whose warrant triable 327 behavior. walk" but response"). indifference if deliberate, proved. callous indifference to the obvious medical needs of a vulnerable pretrial detainee. 17 CONCLUSION For the It is so reasons set forth above, the MOTION will be DENIED. ORDERED. /s/ Robert E. Payne Senior United States District Judge Richmond, Virginia Date: October 2024 18
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
