Mays v. Sprinkle et al, No. 7:2018cv00102 - Document 44 (W.D. Va. 2018)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Senior Judge Glen E. Conrad on 11/16/2018. (aab)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CLERK'S OFFICEU.S.DIST.COURT AT RCW NOKE,VA FILED FOR THE W ESTERN DISTM CT OFVIRGINIA N0î / 1s 2212 ROANOKE DIVISION JU BY: JEFFR EY A . M AY S, AdministratorfortheEstateof DAVID W AYNE M AYS,deceased, C.DUDLEM CLEFQI , EP L CivilAction No.7;18CV00102 M EM ORANDUM OPIM ON Plaintiff, By:Hon.Glen E.Corlrad SeniorUnited StatesDistlictJudge RON A LD N .SPRINK LE,etal., D efendants. David W ayneM ays(çr avid'')died atCarilionRoanokeM emorialHospitalon July 28, 2016, after being arrested in Botetourt Cotmty. Jeffrey M ays, David's brother and the adm inistratorofhisestate,subsequently filed thisaction againstthe SheriffofBotetourtCotmty, RonaldSprinkle,andeightoftheSheriff'softkers,assertingclaimstmder42U.S.C.j 1983and Virginialaw. Thecaseispresently before thecourton the defendants'motion to dismiss. For thefollowingreasons,theplaintiff'sclaimsunderj 1983willbedismissed ptlrsuanttoFederal Rule ofCivilProcedlzre 12(b)(6). The courtwilldeclineto exercisesupplementaljudsdiction overthestatetortclaim s. Backeround The following facm al allegations,taken f' rom the plaintiff's amended complaint, are Mays v. Sprinkle et al accepted astnze forpurposes ofthe pending m otion. See Erickson v.Pardus,551 U.S.89,94 Doc. 44 (2007)(KtgW qhennzlingon adefendant'smotiontodismiss,ajudgemustacceptastrueal1ofthe facmalallegationscontainedinthecomplaint.'). Dockets.Justia.com On July25,2016,oneofSheriffSprinkle'sdeputiesfotmdDavid asleep and slumped over thesteeringwheelofaparked vehicle. Am.Compl.!16,Dkt.No.25. Thedeputyobserved a bag ofprescription medication pextto David. J#. a David evenm ally awoke and advised the deputythathehadtaken gabapentinand alprazolam . 1 J. I. Thedeputy notedthatDavid'sspeech wasslurred,thathiseyeswerebloodshot,andthathehaddifficulty standing up andstayingawake. Ld-a David wascharged with profaneswearing and publicintoxication. J1J.S Hewasultimately lireleasedonhisownmcognizance,ashewassoberenough to leavetmderllisownpower.'' JJ-, David did notundergo any form ofm edicalevaluation and hisprescription m edication wasnot confscated. 1d. Thenextday,David'smothercalled911andrequestedmedicalassistance. 1d.!20. She advised thedispatcherthatDavidEthad consumed alcoholand prescription narcotics,''thathewas liextremely intoxicatedy''and thatshe needed help rem oving him from a vehicle. 1d. Deputy DnnielFaulkneranived onthescenetofsndDavidsittinginthecab ofhistruck. JZ !21. The plaintiffallegesthatDavidwasçsso intoxicated hecould hardly lifthisheadto commtmicate.'' Id. David'seyeswerebloodshot,hisspeechwasmum bledand slurred,andhisgaitwastmsteadyupon exitingthetruck. 11 . 1s HesubsequentlyGilayhimselfdowninthebedofthepiclcuptnzckdespiteit being fu11ofwater.'' Jd.! 25. Deputy Joshua Golladdwaspresentattherearofthetnzck and witnessed(David's)levelofintoxicationandthesurroundingcirctlmstances.'' Id.!22. Davidwasonceagainarrestedforpublicintoxication. ld.IJ19. Atsomepointdtlringthe arrest,FaulknernoticedGtabagf'ullofmultipl' eprescriptionnarcoticstotherightofwheregDavidj was seated.'' J-I. L ! 23 (internalquotation marks omitted). The bag contained a bottle of gabapentin capsules which had been prescribed on July 23,2016,and a bottle of citalopram i According to the am ended complaint, gabapentin is prescribed for the treatm ent of epilepsy and neuropathicpain. Am.Compl.!17. Alprazolam (knowncommerciallyasXanax)isacontrolledsubstanceusedto treatarlxiety. Id.!18. 2 capsuleswhich had been prescribed on July 7, 2016.2 Id. Theplaintiffallegesthat91capsules ofgabapentinarlda1l30capsulesofcitaloprnm weretmaccountedfor. J#=. W hileonthescene,Faulknerspokewith an attorney with theCom monwealth'sAttorney's Office in BotetourtCounty regarding potentialchrges. 1(. ! 26. Faulkner informed the attorney aboutDavid'stilevelofintoxication,thefactthathehadlain down in standingwater,and thefactthatnarcoticsand alcoholwere involved.'' Id. SergeantSteven Honakerarrived on thesceneand assistedFaulknerwith placing David in apatrolvelzicle. Id.!27. Faulknerthentook David to see amagistrate. 1d.!28. W hileen route,David Gtpassed outand began to snore.'' Id. Upon mniving atthe m agistrate's ofsce, Deputy Faulknerhadtocalloutto Davidseveraltimesin orderto awakenhim. J.I. J Z.! 29. The deputyalsohadtohelpDavidstepoutofthevehicle. J#=. TheplaintiffallegesthatDeputy M ichaelPrillnman and LieutenantTravisBelcher cnme upon thescene and witnessed David'slevelofintoxication. Id.!! 30-31. Prillaman assisted Faulknerwith çtwalking (David)into thedocket.'' 1d.! 30. BecauseDavid lçwasunableto sit uprighton the bench due to impainnent,''Belcheradvised him to sitatthe end ofthe bench and leanagainstthewall. Id.!32. The magistrate ultimately Gcordered thatgDavidlbe held untilsober.'' 1d.! 33. At approximately midnight,Sergeant Brandon Byers helped Belcher place David in a cellatthe BotetourtCotmty Jail. Ld.us! 34-35. David required assistance removing ltis shoes and eyeglasses. 1d.!35. Hedidnotreceiveanyform ofmedicalevaluationpriortobeingplacedin thecell,andnoneofthedefendantsrequestedemergencymedicalassistanceatthattime. JZ !36. At3:00 a.m .,Belcherand Prillam an performed a sectlrity check by looldng through the glasswindow ofDavid'scell,through which David could be seen lying on asleeping maton the 2Citalopram isan Ssantidepressantdrup'' Am . Compl.!24. 3 floor. J#a.!(38. Roughly twenty m inuteslater,Byersperfonned anothersecurity check in the samemnnner. J.tls!39. Approximately two minuteslater,afterleaning closerto thewindow to obtain abetterview,Byersasked anotherofficerto open David'scell. JZ !! 39-43. Hethen entered the celland stood nextto David forapproximately 10 seconds. Il J.,! 44. Byersthen proddedDavid'slegandrealizedthathewmsumesponsive. J. z !45. ByersattemptedtowakeDavidbyshakingthesleepingmat. J.1 J. S!46. W henthatproved tmsuccessful,heaskedanotherdeputytoretrievean ammoniapacket. J#z. Hethen attemptedto checkDavid'spulse. Id.!47. Deputiesbeganperformingcardiopulmonaryresuscitation(SCCPR'')atapproximately3:24 a.m. J#.! 48. They continued perfonning CPR forten minutestmtilan emergency medical services(<(EM S'')tmitanivedatthejail. Id.!48. TheEM S llnittransportedDavidto Carilion RoanokeM emorialHospital,whereanelectroencephalogrnm ($%EG'')showed nosignsofbrain activity. Id.! 49-50. David waspronotmced dead on July 28,2016 at12:59 p.m. J.1 J.! 51. Et-f'he cause of death was acute hydrocodone, gabapentin, citaloprnm , and alprazolnm intoxication.'' 1d. ProceduralH istorv The plaintiff filed this action against Sprizlkle, Faullcner, G olla, H onaker, Prillam an, Belcher,Byers,DelbertDudding,3andKennyParke/ on March 7,2018. On M ay4,2018,the plaintifftiled an nm endedcom plaint. In Cotmt1ofthenm ended complaint,theplaintiffassertsa m ongf'uldeathclaim againsta1lninedefendantstmderVirginiaCodej8.01-50,basedontheories ofnegligence,gross negligence,and willfuland wanton negligence. In Cotmts11 and 111,the 3Duddingçsisand wasata1lrelevanttim esherein . . . thecom m anderofthecorrectionsdivision.'' Am . Compl.!9. 4 ParkerEsisandwasata1lrelevanttimesherein ...theChiefCorrectionalOfficer.'' Am.Compl.!9. 4 plaintiffassertsclaimsfordamagestmder42U.S.C.j1983forallegedviolationsofDavid'srights tmdertheEighth and/orFoM eenth Am endmentsto theConstimtion oftheUnited States. ThedefendantshavemovedtodismissthenmendedcomplainttmderRule12(b)(6). The courtheld ahearing on themotion via conference callon August7,2018. Them otion hasbeen fully briefed and isripefordisposition. Standard ofR eview ts-fhe purpose of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion is to testthe suffciency of a complaint'' Edwardsv.CityofGoldsboro,178 F.3d 231,243 (4th Cir.1999). W hen deciding amotion to dismiss underthisnzle,the courtmustacceptastrue allwell-pleaded allegations and draw all reasonable facm al inferences in the plaintiff's favor. Erickson, 551 U.S.at 94. GçW hile a complaintattackedbyaRule12(b)(6)motiontodismissdoesnotneeddetailedfacmalallegations, aplaintiff'sobligation toprovidethegroundsofhisentitlem entto reliefrequiresm orethan labels and conclusions,andaformulaicrecitation oftheelem entsofacauseofaction willnotdo.'' Bell Atl.Corn.v.Twomblv,550U.S.544,555(2007)(internalcitationandquotationmarksomitted). To survive dismissalfor failtlre to state a claim ,<ta complaintmustcontain sufficient facm al m atter,accepted astrue,to çstateaclaim forreliefthatisplausibleon itsface.''' Ashcroftv.Igbal, 556U.S.662,678(2009)(quotingTwomblv,550U.S.at570). D isçussion 1. Claim sunder$ 1983 Thecourtwillfirstaddresstheplaintic sclaimsunderj1983,whichimposescivilliability on any person acting tmdercolorofstate 1aw to deprive anotherperson ofrights and privileges secured bytheConstimtion and lawsoftheUzlitedSGtes. See42 U.S.C.j 1983. In CountI1, theplaintiffclaim sthatFaulkner,Golla,Honaker,Belcher,Prillnm an,and Byersviolated David's constitm ionalrights by acting with deliberate indifference to a seriousm edicalneed. In Count 5 111,the plaintiff claim s that Sprinkle,Dudding,and/or Parker Cçcreated a policy of deliberate indifferenceby allowing inmatesand detaineesto beadmitted into the EBotetourtCounty Jailq withoutpropermedicalscreening.'' Am.Compl.! 83. A. C ount11 In moving to dismissCount1I,the defendantsarguethatthe am ended com plaintfailsto state aclaim fordeliberateindifference,and thatthe defendantsnnm ed in Cotmt11areentitled to qualifed im munity. Forthefollowing reasons,the courtagrees. 1. DeliberateIndifference The Eighth Am endmentprohibits correctionalofûcialsfrom inflicting crtleland tmusual punishmentby acting with deliberate indifferenceto an inm ate'sseriousm edicalneeds. Estelle v.Gnmble,429U.S.97,104(1976). Thisprinciplealsoappliestopretrialdetainees,likeDavid, through theFourteenthAm endment'sDueProcessClause. SeeM artin v.Gentile,849 F.2d 863, 870(4thCir.1988). BecauseStgtqhedueprocessrightsofapretrialdetaineeareatleastasgreatas theeighth nmendm entprotectionsavailableto the convicted prisoner,''theUnited StatesCourtof AppealsfortheFourthCircuitçthags)heldthatapretrialdetaineemakesoutadueprocessviolation ifhe shows Qdeliberate indifference to seriousm edicalneeds'within the meaning of Estelle v. Gnmble.'' 1d.;seealsoBrownv.Hanis,240F.3d383,388(4thCir.2011)(;$Inanycase,weneed notresolvewhetherBrown wasapretrialdetaineeoraconvictedprisonerbecausethe standard in eithercaseisthesame--thatis,whetheragovernm entofficialhasbeen Sdeliberately indifferentto any gofhislseriousmedicalneeds.''')(quotingBelcherv.Oliver,898F.2d32,34(4thCir.1990)) (alterationinoriginal). A claim fordeliberate indifferencehastwo components. Jackson v.Lightsey,775 F.3d 170,178(4th Cir.2014). Thefirst,Cçobjective''componentissatisfed by a t'serious''medical need. Id. A m edical condition is serious when it has Cibeen diagnosed by a physician as 6 mandating treatm entorisso obviousthateven a1ay person would easily recognizethenecessity fora doctor's attention.'' Scinto v.Stansberry,841 F.3d 219,225 (4th Cir.2016) (internal quotationmarksomitted). Thesecond componentrequiresplaintiffstoshow thatoffcialsacted withaçitsuftïcientlyculpablestateofmind.''' Id.(quotingFannerv.Brezman,511U.S.825,834 (1994)). Under existing precedent,Gçlaqn officialis deliberately indifferentto a Edetainee's) seriousmedicalneedsonlywhenheorshesubjectivelyçlcnowsofanddisregardsanexcessiverisk to inmate health or safety.''' Jackson,775 F.3d at 178 (quoting Farmer,511 U.S.at837). ççstated som ewhatdifferently,deliberate indifference requires ashowing thatthe defendr ts ... actually knew ofand ianored a detainee'sseriousneed form edicalcaze.'' Parrish v.Cleveland, 372 F.3d 294,302 (4th Cir.2004)(internalquotation marks omitted) (emphasis in original). Notably,thisisççahigherstandardforculpabilitythanm erenegligenceoreven civilrecklessness.'' Jackson,775F.3d at178. To establish aconstitutionalviolation,Gtitisnotenough thatan official should have known ofarisk;heorshemusthave had actualsubjectiveknowledgeofboth the gdetainee's)seziousmedicalcondition and the excessiverisk posed by the offcial's action or inaction.''5 Id.(emphasisinoriginal). Applying these principles,the courtis tm able to conclude that the nm ended complaint statesaplausibleclaim ofdeliberateindifferenceagainstany ofthedefendantsnnm ed in CotmtII. W hileDavid'sdeath isundeniablytragic,hisalleged sym ptom saresimilarto thosein anllmberof 5 Thecourtnotesthatneithersidesuggeststhatthe SupremeCourt'sdecision in Kincsley v. H endrickson, U.S. ,l35 S.Ct.2466(2015)eliminated thesubjectivecomponentofaclaim fordeliberateindifference broughtby a pretrialdetahlee. ln Khmslev,the Supreme Courtheld S'thatthe appropriate standard fora pretrial detainee'sexcessiveforceclaim issolelyanobjectiveone.'' 135S.Ct.at2473. However,Kingslevdidnotinvolve aclaim ofdeliberateindifferencetoaseriousmedicalneed,andneithertheSupremeCourtnortheFourth Circuithas extended itsholding to other claims. Accordingly,the courtwillapply the subjective standard of deliberate indifferencesetforth above. See.e.a.,Johnsonv.Bessem er,N o.17-13122,2018U .S.App.LEX IS 18660,at*9,n.5 (11thCir.July 10,2018)(notingthatKincslev involvedan excessiveforceclaim and did notundermineexisting circuitprecedentapplicabletoclaimsofdeliberateindifferencetoaseriousmedicalneed);seealsoW ilsonv.Jacobs, No.0:14-4006,2016U.S.Dist.LEXIS21243,at*7n. 4(D.S.C.Jan.22,2016),reportandrecommendationadopted, 2016U.S.Dist.LEXIS 20813(D.S.C.Feb,22,2016)(KtBecausethedecisioninKingslevaddressedonly claimsof excessiveforce,thiscourtcontinuesto abideby precedentestablished by theUnited StatesCourtofAppealsforthe FourthCircuit,whichhassetforthasubjectivestandardwhenaddressingapretrialdetainee'sclaimsofdeliberate indifferencetoaseriousmedicalneed.''). othercasesin which courts,including the Fourth Circuit,have rejected claims ofdeliberate indifference. Forinstmlce,in Grayson v.Peed,a cotmty police officerarrived atthe scene ofa shopping mallwhere the decedent,Gerald Collins,was Stacting crazy.'' 195 F.3d at 694. He resisted beinghandcuffed andtheoffcerhad to useaspecialim mobilization techniquetorestrain him. Lp-. After searching Collins' backpack,the officer found film canisters containing marijuanaand asubstancebelievedtobePCP. L4.a Theoffkerplaced Collinslmderarrestand transported him to a detention facilil. Id. During the boolcing process,Collins Sçactledq irrationally,hisspeech wasslurred,alzdhekeptrepeating inanintoxicatedm annen'' Id. Collins then proceeded to actSGbelligerently''and çiviolently''on severaloccasions,and he wasçdptmched seven to nine times''in the processofsubduing him . 1d. Afterbeing restrained in a cellatthe detention facility,Collinsbecam eunconsciousandevenmally died. Id. Inasubsequentj1983actionagainstthem estingofficer,Collins'motherclaimedthatthe officer'sdecision to transporthim to adetention facility insteadofahospitalconstitm ed deliberate indifference. Id.at695. TheFourth Circuitdisagreed,concluding thattherewasno objective evidence available to the officeratthe tim e ofthe incidentthatCollins had a serious need for m edicalcare. 1d. The courtemphasized that,atthe time oftheirencounter,Collinsexhibited ççno visibleexternalinjuries.'' 1d. Eçl-le did nothavetrouble breathing. Hewasnotbleeding, wasnotvom iting orchoking,andwasnothavinga seizure.'' Id. Inconcludingthattheevidence did not supporta claim of deliberate indifference, the Fourth Circuit reasoned that Collins' symptom sofdrugusedidnotçtdistinguish him from themultitudeofdrug and alcoholabusersthe policedealwitheverydayy''andthattheofûcercould l&hardly befaulted tmderEstelleforbelieving thatCollinsneedednothingsomuchasto sleep itoE '' JZ at696. TheCourtemphasizedthat Cçrtlo acceptappellant'sclaim wouldbeto mandateasamatterofconstitutional1aw thatofficers 8 take a1lcriminalsuspectsunder the influence ofdrugs oralcoholto hospitalem ergency rooms ratherthan detention centers,''which itdetermined Slwould bea startling step to take.'' Id. Similarly,in Burnettev.Taylor,533 F.3d 1325 (11th Cir.2008),theEleventh Circuit fotmd no constitutionalviolation under circllm stances sim ilarto those in the instantcase. 533 F.3dat1332-33. InBurnette,adetaineediedofadrug overdosewhilein custody. JZ at1327. The detainee was arrested afterhis stepfatherreported thathe had broken into the stepfather's houseand stolen prescription Duragesicpatchesused to treatchronicpain.6 Id. Thedetainee's stepfatheralso advised adeputy thatthe detainee wasçççstrtmg out'on pillsand othertlnlgs,''and thathetthadbeen in detox ordrtlgtreatmentin thepastand thatithad notworked.'' Id.at1328. Atthe tim e of his arrest,the detainee Eçhad glassy eyes and dilated pupils,''his liresponses to questions were slow,''and he Gtwas in possession ofa bottle ofprescription pills.'' 1d. Itwas readily apparentto oneofthe deputiesthatthedetaineeKiwastmdertheinfluenceofsom ething.'' Id. Afterhe wastaken to the localjail,a prescription pillbottlewasfotmd in the detainee's tmderwearandhewasobservedstaggeringby oneofthejailers. Id. Anotherjailernoticedthat the detainee'sspeech wasslurred. ld.at1329. Therewasalso evidencethatthe detaineetiwas notabletowalkonhisom&y''andthatoneofthejailersaskedhiscellmatetomakestlrethathewas ableto getto abed withoutfalling. J. Z ,Thedetainee wasfound dead thefollowingmonling. LI. J. Stl-hecauseofdeathwaspolyphnrmacy:differentdrugsin combination. The(lrugsinvolved wereAlprazolam,Hydrocodone,Benzolecgonine,andFentanyl.'' J/-,at1130-31. The detainee'sfatherfiled suitagainstseveraldeputiesandjailersunder j 1983. On appealf' rom the districtcourt'sdecision denying qualified im m unity,theEleventh Circuitheld that theplaintiffEtfailedtoestablishaviolationofgthedetainee'sjFourteenthAmendmentdghts. ld. 6 dr uragesicisabrandname forafentanylskin patch . . . . Iti snotmeanttobeingestedorallynorinjected undertheskin,butsometimesisbythosewhoareabusingthedrup'' Kriecerv.UnitedStates,842F.3d490,492(7th Cir.2016);seealsoBurnette,533F.3dat1331n.3. 9 at1327. Citingseveralcasesfrom othercircuits,theCourtemphasizedthatGtGgtjheConstimtion doesnotrequire an arresting police officerorjailofficialto seek medicalattention forevery arresteeorinmatewho appearstobeaffectedby drugsoralcohol.'' J. I. L at1333. Based onthe record beforeit,theCourtconcludednoneofthedefendantsactedwith deliberateindifferenceto a seriousmedicalneedthatwasobviousorknowntohim. Ld.aat1332. Upon review oftheam ended complaint,thecoul'tseesvery little difference in the alleged interactionsbetween Davidandthedefendantsnam ed in CotmtI1,andtheencolmtersdescribed in Grayson andBurnette. TheplaintiffdoesnotallegethatDavidhadanyextem alinjuries,thathe wasbreathing abnorm ally beforebeing placed in acell,orthathewasvomiting orchoking. See Grayson,195 F.3d at695. Although David exhibited signs of intoxication by climbing in the back ofhiswettruck,staggering,and sluning hiswords,such symptomsdo notGtdistinguish him from the multitude of drug and alcoholabusers the police dealwith everyday.'' J. Z at696 (emphasizingthatthedecedentççwasfound in possession ofdrugswhileacting irrationally and slurringhisspeech''). NordoesthefactthatDavid'seyeswerebloodshotorthathewasunableto exitthepatrolcaronhisown. SeeBurnette,533F.3dat1332(notingthatoneofthedefendants wasawarethatthedecedentwas in possession ofabottle ofpillswhen hewasr ested,thathis speech wasslurred,thatheneeded assistancewhen hem oved,andthathiseyeswererolling back inhisheadatthattime);seealsoLetsonv.M itchell,No.3:13-cv-00168,2015U.S.Dist.LEXIS 39885,at*20 (N.D.Ala.M ar.30,2015)(CW ccordingtothenmended complaint,when Deputy Frye arrested Dan Letson on October11,2011,Dan Letson wasso intoxicated thathe had to be canied totheofficers'vehicle. Although theseallegationsprovidedetailregardingthedegreeto wllich Dan Letson was intoxicated when he was arrested ...,they fallshortofdem onstrating Deputy Frye or Deputy Flnnnagin knew Dan Letson had a seriousm edicalneed thatrequired medicalattention atthosetimes.''). 10 In response to the defendants'motion,the plaintiffemphasizesthatFaulknernoticed çEa bagfullofm ultipleprescription narcotics''in David'stnlck,andthatDavid'sm otherhadreported thatalcoholand prescription narcotics were involved. Am.Compl.! 20,23. However,the plaintiffdoesnotallege thatFaulknerorany ofthe otherdefendants were aware ofthe specific natureofthedrugsfound in David'stnlck orthathehadconsum ed an am ountlargeenough toput him atseriousrisk ofharm . There isnoindication thatany ofthedefendantsacmally saw David swallow any drugs,andtheplaintiffacknowledgesthatDavid did notççtellany oftheofficerswhat and how much m edication he had taken or state whetherhe had mixed those medications with alcohol.'' J#-.!37, Consequently,theallegationsinthecomplaintdonotsupporttheconclusion thatDavid'sneed form edicalattention wassufsciently obvious,orthatthe defendants actually knew ofand disregarded an excessiverisk ofserioushnrm. See.e.M.,Johnson v.Bessem er,No. 17-13122,2018U.S.App.LEXIS 18660,at*10 (11th Cir.July 10,2018)(sGlohnson arguesthat Proctorsuffered from aseriousm edicalneed because alay person would recogrlizethatsom eone whoisnon-responsiveafterconsuming anllnknown quantityofdrugsrequiresm edicaltreatm ent. Thatargllmentfails. Goodwin didsuspectthatProctorhadtakendrugsbeforecomingtothejail, and atsomepointshe leam ed thatProctorhad told otherinmatesthatshehad taken Xanax. But thereisno evidencethatGoodwin knew thatProctorhad also taken m ethadone and cocaine,and shetestified thatshehasno m edicaltraining and doesnotknow theside effectsofXanu . And theQconstimtiondoesnotrequire...(a1jailofficialtoseekmedicalattentionforeveryarresteeor inmatewho appearsto beaffected by dnzgsoralcohol.''')(quoting Bum ette,533 F.3d at133); Sandersv.CitvofDothan,409F.App'x285,289(11thCir.2011)(EGEvenifEthearrestingoffcer) wasawarethatSandershad swallowed some amountofcocaine,there isno evidencethathewas awarethatSandershadswallowed anamotmtlargeenoughtoputhim atseriousrisk ofharm.''); W atkinsv.CityofBattleCreek,273F.3d 682,686 (6th Cir.2001)(id-l-hus,itisnotenough for plaintiffto demonstrate aquestion offactwhetherthepolice officersorsherifpsdeputiesshould haveknown thatW atkinshad swallowed drugs. W efind theevidencewasnotsum cientto leada rationaltrieroffacttoconcludethattheoflicersorjailersknew W atkinsneededmedicalattention for swallowing dn1gs.''). For these reasons, Cotmt 11 fails to state a claim for deliberate indifference, 2. Oualified Im m unitv Thedefendantsalso arguethatCotmt11issubjectto dismissalon thebasisofqualifed imm unity. The defense of qualifed imm unity sllields ççgovernment officials perform ing discretionaryfunctions...from liabilityforcivildam agesinsofarastheirconductdoesnotviolate clearly established statutory orconstitutionalrights of which a reasonable person would have 1c10w11.'' Harlow v.Fitzgerald,457U.S.800,818(1982). çsln determiningwhetheranofficeris entitledtosummaryjudgmentonthebasisofqualifiedimmtmity,courtsengageinatwo-pronged inquiry.'' Smithv.Ray,781F.3d95,100(4thCir.2015). Thefirstprongaskswhetherthefacts alleged,when viewed in thelightmostfavorableto theplaintiff,show thatthe officer's conduct violated afederalright. 1d.(citing Saucierv.Katz,533 U.S.194,201 (2001)). çç' l-lzesecond prong ofthe qualified im m unity inquiry a' sks whetherthe rightw as clearly established atthe tim e the violation occurred such that a reasonable person would have known thatllis conductwas unconstitutional.'' Id. GT o be clearly established,a rightmustbe sufficiently clearthatevery reasonable officialwould have tmderstood thatwhathe is doing violates thatright. In other words, existing precedent m ust have placed the statutory or constitutional question beyond debate.'' Reichlev.Howards,566U.S.658,664 (2012)(internalquotationmarks,citations,and bracketsomitted). Forthereasonssetforth above,thecourtconcludesthatthe plaintiffhasnotalleged facts suffcientto show thatany ofthe defendants nam ed in Count11violated David's constimtional 12 rights. However, even if the plaintiff could establish a constitutionalviolation,the courtis convinced thatsuch violation wasnotclearly established. Asindicated above,cotu'tshaveheld thatSçltjheConstimtiondoesnotrequireanarrestingpoliceoffcerorjailofficialtoseekmedical attention forevery arresteeorinmatewho appearsto beaffected by drugsoralcohol.'' Burnette, 533 F.3d at1333. Likewise,itdoesnotmandateçsthatoffcerstakeal1criminalsuspectsunderthe influence of drugs or alcohol to hospital emergency room s rather than detention centers.'' Grayson,195 F.3d at696;seealso EstateofAbdel-l!ak v.Dearborn,8t2 F.2d 1023 (6th Cir. 1989)(lmpublishedtableopirlion)(rejectingaslçmeritless''theargumentthatGipolicehadadutyto takeallchemicallyimpairedpersonstothehospital'). Althoughpretrialdetaineeshaveaclearly established righttobefreefrom deliberateindifferenceto aseriousm edicalneed,itcannotbesaid that'tevery reasonable official''wouldhavetmderstood,underthecircum stancesalleged,thatthe defendants'actionsviolated thatright. Reichle,566 U.S.at664. Accordingly,the defendants nnm ed in Count11are entitled to qualified im m urlity. B. C ountIII In Count111,theplaintiffallegesthatSprinkle,Dudding,and/orParkerhad Eçfinalpolicy making authority regardingthescreeningandprovisionofmedicalcare''atthejail,andthatthey Gscreated a policy of deliberate indifference''by allowing inm ates and detaineesto be admitted withoutpropermedicalscreening. Am.Compl.!! 81,83. In hisresponseto thedefendants' m otion to dismiss,theplaintiffemphasizesthata11ofthedefendants,including Sprinkle,Dudding, and Parker,havebeen sued in theirindividual,ratherthan official,capacities. A s an initialm atter,the courtnotes thatthe plaintiffs contention thatSprinkle,Dudding, and Parkerarepolicym akersGtdoesnotquite captlzrethe relevantissue here.'' D awkinsv.Arthur, 701F.App'x 191,193 (4th Cir.2017). Ir ebatingwhetherapublic (officialqhasadopted an unconstimtional Ecustom 'or dpolicy' is a question to be asked when examining the basis for mtmicipalliability llnder j 1983,'' and ttis not the right question to ask when confronting a supervisor'spotentialliability in his individualcapacity.'' M ilckelsen v.DeW itt,141 F.App'x 88,91(4th Cir.2005)(emphasisinoriginal). lnstead,Gçwherethe...claimsareagainstapublic officialin (hisjindividualcapacity,toholdtheoffcialliablefor(ajsubordinate'sconduct,that çconductmustmeetthetestforsupervisory liability'''enunciated in Shaw v.Stroud,13 F.3d 791 (4thCir.1994). Dawkins,701F.App'xat193(quotingMikkelsen,141F.App'xat91);seealso Shaw,13 F.3d at799 (setting forth ttthreeelementsnecessary to establish supervisory liability tmderj1983''). Nevertheless,inlightofthecourt'sconclusionthatthefactsallegeddonotstate a viable claim for deliberate indifference against the officers responsible for r esting and detaining David, it follows that the claim against Sprirlkle, Dudding, and Parker m ust be dismissed. See Doe v.Rosa,664 F.App'x 301,304 (4th Cir.2016) (tThere can be no supervisoryliabilitywhenthereisnounderlyingviolationoftheConstitution.'')(citingTemkinv. FrederickCotmty Comm'rs,945F.2d716,724 (4thCir.1991));seealsoBelcher,898F.2d at36 (stBecauseitisclearthattherewasnoconstitutionalviolation weneed notreachthequestion of whetheramunicipalpolicywasresponsiblefortheofficers'actions.'). II. C laim s under V irainia law The court'sconclusion thatthe nmended complaintfails to state a claim forreliefunder j1983doesnotmeanthata11avenuesofredressareunavailable. Theplaintiffhasalsoasserteda wrongfuldeath claim againstallninedefendantstmderVirginia Code j 8.01-50,based on tort theoriessuch asnegligenceand grossnegligence. lnm ovingto dism issthiscotmt,thedefendants arguethattheyareGtimmunetoclaim sofsimplenegligence,''andthatEsDuddingandParkerdidnot oweM aysanydutiesrelatedtosettingorimplementingpolicies''atthejail. Defs.'Br.in Supp.of M ot.to Dism iss4,10,Dkt.N o.30. Afterconsidering the parties'arguments,the courtbelieves thatdithe definition of legal dutiestmderthe1aw oftortisbestleftforthestate courtsto resolvey''asistheissueofwhetherthe doctrine of sovereign imm tmity protects the defendants from the plaintiffs claim of sim ple negligence. Safarv.Tingle,859F.3d241,251(4thCir.2017). Accordingly,thecotu' tdeclines to exercise supplementaljurisdiction overtheremaining claimsand willdismissthem without prejudice to the plaintiffs right to advance them in state court. 1d.; see also 28 U.S.C. j l367(c)(3)(authorizingadistrictcourtto declinetoexercisesupplementaljurisdictionwhen it dthas dismissed a11claimsoverwhich ithasoriginaljtlrisdiction'l;Carnecie-M ellon Urliv.v. Cohill.484U.S.343,350 (1988)(emphasizingthatGçwhen thefederal-law claimshavedropped outofthe lawsuitin its early stages and only state-law claim srem ain,the federalcourtshould declinetheexerciseofjurisdiction by dismissing thecasewithoutprejudice''l;Ryuv.W hitten, 684F.App'x308,311-12(4thCir.2017)(decliningtoexercisesupplementaljurisdictionoverthe plaintiffsstate 1aw claim safterconcluding thattherewasno federalconstitutionalviolation,and instructingthedistrictcourtonremandtodismissthestate1aw claimswithoutprejudice), C onclu:ion For the reasons stated,the courtwillgrant the defendants'm otion with respect to the plaintiY sclaimslmder42U.S.C.j 1983. W hilethecourtsympathizeswiththeplaintiffsloss, thecourtistmable to conclude thatthenm ended complaintstatesaplausibleclaim ofdeliberate indifference againstany ofthenamed defendants. Therem aining claim sunderstatelaw willbe dismissedwithoutprejudice. The Clerk is directed to send copies ofthis m em orandum opinion and the accom panying ordertoa1lcolm selofrecord. DATED :This lk day ofN ovember,2018. SeniorUnited StatesDistrictJudge 15
]]>
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.
