Mays v. Sprinkle et al, No. 7:2018cv00102 - Document 51 (W.D. Va. 2019)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Senior Judge Glen E. Conrad on 08/15/2019. (ams)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
GL-t; k1tIx' S;t. g:-F;:.z'f' ;' tI. :-.lQ!SX . AT OKE,VA FILO RT Ap J,c o 15 2212 IN THE U NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTMRN DISTRICT OFVIRGINIA ROAN OK E D IVISION JEFFREY A .M AYS, A dm inistratorforthe Estate of DA VID W AY NE M A YS,deceased, Plaintiff, JULIA a UDLEM CLERK BY; . DG -7Y CL .K CivilAction N o.7:18CV 00102 M EM ORANDUM OPINION By:Hon.Glen E.Conrad SeniorUnited StatesD istrictJudge RONA LD N .SPRJN KLE,etal., Defendants. David svayne s4ays died in July of 2016, after being arrested in Botetourt County, Jeffrey M ays,the decedent's brother and the adm inistrator of his estate,subsequently tiled this action against the Sheriff of Botetourt County, Ronald Sprinkle, and eight of the Sheriffs oftscers,assertingclaimsunder42U.S.C.j 1983andVirginialaw. 0nNovember16,2018,the courtgranted the defendants'm otion to dism iss, holding, inter alia,thatthe plaintiff failed to state a claim for deliberate indifference under the Fourteenth Am endm ent against certain defendants. Theplaintiffhasmoved to alteroramend thejudgmentunderRule 59(e)ofthe FederalRulesofCivilProcedure. Forthe reasonsthatfollow ,the m otion w illbe denied. $$A Rule59(e)motion maybe granted only inthreesituations:$(1)to accommodatean intervening changeincontrolling law;(2)to accountfornew evidencenotavailableattrial;or (3)tocorrecta clearerroroflaw orpreventmanifestinjustice.'''M ayfeld v.Nat'lAss'nfor Mays v. Sprinkle et al StockCarAutoRacing,674F.3d369,378(4thCir.2012)(emphasisadded)(quotingZinkandv. Doc. 51 Brown,478F.3d634,637(4thCir.2007)).ççltisanextraordinaryremedythatshouldbeapplied sparingly''and only in ççexceptionalcircumstaices-'' 1d. The ruleççmay notbeusedto relitigate old m atters,or to raise argum ents or present evidence thatcould have been raised prior to the Dockets.Justia.com entry ofjudgment.'' Exxon ShippineCo.v.Baker,554 U.S.471,486n.5 (2008)(citationand internalquotationmarksomitled). Applying these principles,the courtconcludes that the plaintiff is notentitled to relief underRule59(e).Inseekingreconsideration,theplaintifffrstchallengesthelegalstandardthat thecourtapplied in evaluatingtheplaintifrsclaim ofdeliberate indifferencetoa seriousmedical need. Relying on the Suprem e Court's decision in K ingsley v.Hendrickson, 135 S.Ct.2466 (2015),theplaintiffarguesthatthecourtshouldhaveapplied apurelyobjectivestandard. See Kingsley,135 S.Ct.at2473 (holding thatSsthe appropriate standard fora pretrialdetainee's excessiveforceclaim issolely an objectiveone''). Asthecourtnoted in itspreviousopinion, how ever,K ingsley did not involve a claim of deliberate indifference to a serious m edicalneed, and neitherthe Suprem e Courtnorthe Fourth Circuithas extended itsholding to othertypes of claim s under the Fourteenth Am endm ent. A lthough the (Csecond,Seventh,and Ninth Circuits haveintepretedKingsley asdisplacingpriorsubjectiverequirements,...theFifth,Eighth,and Eleventh Circuits have held thatK inaslev!applies only to excessive force claim s and does not . extend to claim s related to conditions ofconfinem ent or inadequate m edical care.''' Estate of Vallinav.Ctv.ofTellerSheriff'sOffice,757 F.App'x 643,646-47 (10th Cir.2018)(citations omitted).Consequently,theplaintiffisunableto establishany clearerrorin thelegalstandard em ployed by the court. In the absence of express direction from the Suprem e Court or the Fourth Circuit,the courtrem ains convinced that it appropriately applied the Fourth Circuit's longstanding standard fordeliberate indifference. See.e.a.,Perrv v.Barnes,N o.8:16-cv-00705, 2019 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 34596,at*9,n.3 (D.Md.M ar.5,2019)(declining to apply a solely *ThecourtnotesthattheTenth, Third,andSixth Circuitshavedeclinedto addresstheissue.SeeEstateof Vallinav.Ctv.ofTellerSherifps,office.757F.App'x643,647(10thCir.2012);Moorev.Luffev,767F.App'x 335,340n.2(3dCir.2019);W illiamsv.CityofGeorcetown,No.12-6122,2019U.S.App.LEXIS 15529,at#9,n. 2(6th Cir.M ay 24,2019). 2 objectivem ndardandnotingthatuneithertbisCourtnortheFourthCircdthasapplledKlpaslev M apretrialdetlunee'sclaim offailure to F oteçtordelibepte indiFerenceto a sedousmedical neeip). The courtmust also relectthe plaintic s argumentthat the courtcleady erred in concluding thatthe a ended complaintfailed to state a claim for deliberate indlfference. In reace g itsdecision,the courtconsldered the allegations Dgarding the decedent's sm ptom s and hlslnteracGonsw11 thennmed defendants,O d dete= lned thatthecircllmKtancesalleged ln theamended complahtweresimllartoi oseln otbercaseslnwhlch coueq,includingtheFonrth Circult hadrejected clnlmKofdellberateindlfference. Thecourtultlmstely concludedtbatthe allegatlonsln theamended complalntdid no1supporttheconclusion thatthedecedent'sneed for medlcal aûenfon was qum ciently obvlous, or that the defendsnts actllnlly H ew of and disregarded an excessive risk ofsedousbnrm. W hlle theplalntlF obvlously dsap eesw1111the . court'sdecislon,çlmere dlsareementdoes notsupportaRule 59(e)motiom'' Hutcylpqon v. Statona994F.2d1076,1082(41 Cir.1993). Forthesereasons,V courtSndsnobasistoalteroramenditsorderofdismissalunder Rule 59(e). Accordingly,the plalntie smodon wl1lbe denied. Iftheplaino cone uesto believe iat. the courteced in dismissing the amended complslnq the appropriate course of acGon is to apm althe court's decision to the Unlted States CourtofAppeals forthe Fourth Circuit. TheClerk isdirected to send copiesoftllism em orandum oplnion andtheaccompaaying ordertoallconnqelofrecord. DATED :This :5 day ofAugusty2019. senlorunttedstatso strictJudge 3
]]>
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.
