Besecker v. Loop

1

COURTNEY BESECKER, Plaintiff, v. FRANK LOOP, BRANDON REARDON, COLTON MCPHEETERS, ELISHA AMSLER, MATTHEW MYERS, LOGAN FOREMAN, REBEKAH CARKUFF, MELVIN HUGHES, MIRANDA GEARY, CHRISTOPHER ZELIVETZ, DAVID LOCK, ISAAC CRAFTON, SETH CHRISTIAN, KYLE WARREN, ADVANCED CORRECTIONAL HEALTHCARE, INC., USA MEDICAL & PSYCHOLICAL STAFFING, P.C., ZACHARY SCHAEFER, ROY WASHINGTON, COURTNEY NICHOLS, MARLENA BEACRAFT, Defendants.

No. 4:22-cv-00084-TWP-KMB

United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, New Albany Division

May 8, 2023

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS

HON TANYA WALTON PRATT, CHIEF JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT.

This matter is before the Court on a Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(f), filed by Defendants Frank Loop Brandon Reardon, Colton McPheeters, Elisha Amsler, Matthew Myers, Logan Foreman, Rebekah Carkuff, Melvin Hughes, Miranda Geary, Christopher Zelivetz, David Lock, Isaac Crafton, Seth Christian, and Kyle Warren, Advanced Correctional Healthcare Inc., USA Medical & Psychological Staffing, P.C., Zachary Schaefer, Roy Washington, Courtney Nichols, and Marlena Beacraft. (Filing No. 32.) Plaintiff Courtney Besecker ("Besecker"), a former pretrial detainee at Floyd County Jail (the "Jail") in New Albany, Indiana, allegedly suffered a miscarriage after she was arrested and booked into the Jail. She initiated a civil rights lawsuit against six defendants who worked for Floyd County. Besecker v. Loop et al., No. 4:21-cv-00112-TWP-KMB (S.D. Ind. 2021) (Besecker I). Nearly a year after bringing Besecker I, Besecker filed the present suit, which includes claims against the Besecker I defendants as well as fourteen additional defendants. Besecker v. Loop et al., No. 4:22-cv-00084-TWP-KMB (S.D. Ind. 2022) (Besecker II). All of the Defendants argue Besecker's claims in this lawsuit should be dismissed because bringing them in this lawsuit amounts to improper claims splitting. For the reasons, that follow, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is granted in part and denied in part.

I. LEGAL STANDARD

Complaints generally must include "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). The short and plain statement must "give the defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). The statement also must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to "state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face," which means that the pleaded facts must show there is "more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).

Defendants have moved to dismiss Besecker's Complaint under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(f). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) authorizes dismissal of a complaint that fails to "state a claim upon which relief can be granted." Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6).

When deciding a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), the court accepts as true all factual allegations in the complaint and draws all inferences in favor of the plaintiff. Roberts v. City of Chicago, 817 F.3d 561, 564 (7th Cir. 2016). However, the court "[is] not obliged to accept as true legal conclusions or unsupported conclusions of fact." Hickey v. O'Bannon, 287 F.3d 656, 658 (7th Cir. 2002).

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(f)(1)(C) authorizes the court to issue any "just" orders, including dismissal, when a party fails to obey a scheduling or other pretrial order. Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(f)(1)(C). "District Courts have the power to control their dockets, and there comes a point when disregard of court rules and orders becomes so serious that sanctions . . . are in order." Alexander v. Casino Queen, Inc., 321 Fed.Appx. 509, 511 (7th Cir. 2009). However, dismissal is considered the "ultimate sanction" and "is reserved for cases in which the offending party has demonstrated willfulness, bad faith, or fault." Long v. Steepro, 213 F.3d 983, 986 (7th Cir. 2000); see also English v. Cowell, 969 F.2d 465. 473 (7th Cir. 1992) ("The sanction of dismissal is appropriate only in extreme situations when there is a clear record of delay or contumacious conduct, or when other less drastic sanctions have proven unavailing.") (cleaned up).

II. BACKGROUND^[1]

On July 6, 2020, Besecker was arrested and booked into the Jail. (Filing No. 1 ¶ 24.) She reported using heroin, xanax, and fentanyl. Id. ¶ 25. She also reported that she was pregnant. Id. Besecker was assessed by medical staff and given a pregnancy test, which came back positive. Id. ¶ 27. She was placed on "detox watch"; she was not transferred to the hospital. See id. ¶¶ 27, 30.

Over the course of the next week, Besecker ate very little and experienced severe withdrawal symptoms. Id. ¶¶ 32, 34, 36.

Around 4:00 or 5:00 a.m., on July 12, 2020, Besecker complained of vaginal bleeding to Officer Colton McPheeters. Id. ¶ 37. He explained that she would have to wait until the medical staff arrived. Id. Although a nurse arrived at 7:00 a.m., Besecker was not seen until 9:15 a.m. Id. ¶ 38. Based on her symptoms and complaints of pain, Besecker was eventually transferred to a hospital. Id. ¶ 39. At the hospital, doctors determined that Besecker had suffered a spontaneous abortion. Id. ¶ 40.

Besecker currently has two active lawsuits in this district. The first lawsuit, Besecker I, was filed on July 12, 2021 against Frank Loop, Brandon Reardon, Zachary Schaefer, Roy Washington, Courtney Nichols, and Marlena Beacraft ("Besecker I Defendants"). In that suit, Besecker brought a Fourteenth Amendment objective unreasonableness claim against all Defendants, a Monell claim against Defendant Loop, and state-law negligence claims against all Defendants. The second lawsuit, Besecker II, was filed on July 6, 2022, against the Besecker I Defendants as well as fourteen additional defendants: Colton McPheeters, Elisha Amsler, Matthew Myers, Logan Foreman, Rebekah Carkuff, Melvin Hughes, Miranda Geary, Christopher Zelivetz, David Lock, Isaac Crafton, Seth Christian, Kyle Warren, Advanced Correctional Healthcare, Inc. ("ACH"), and USA Medical & Psychological Staffing, P.C. ("USA Medical") (all collectively, the "Besecker II Defendants"). In this suit, Besecker pursues Fourteenth Amendment objective unreasonableness claims against all Defendants; Monell claims against Defendants Loop, ACH, and USA Medical; and state-law negligence claims against ACH, USA Medical, and the individual medical defendants. Both lawsuits concern the medical treatment Besecker received at the Jail.

The Besecker II Defendants now jointly move to dismiss all of Besecker's claims. They assert that, by filing this lawsuit, Besecker has improperly split her claims into two separate lawsuits, and that she should have brought them in Besecker I. (Filing Nos. 32, 33). Besecker responds that this lawsuit should proceed for two reasons: (1) Besecker II was filed to avoid the constraints of the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ("PLRA"), 110 Stat. 1321-71, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e et seq.; and (2) final judgment has not yet been entered in Besecker I.

III. DISCUSSION

Before reaching the merits, the Court must first be address two procedural matters.

First, Defendants Loop, McPheeters, Reardon, and Schaefer have filed a motion for leave to file a supplemental brief in support of the motion to dismiss on April 26, 2023 (Filing No. 50). They highlight that the Court has now granted summary judgment to Defendants Loop, Reardon, and Schaefer in Besecker I, and so res judicata now bars Besecker's claims. This motion, (Filing No. 50), is denied because supplemental briefing is unnecessary. The Court is aware of the summary judgment ruling in Besecker I, and to the extent it impacts the analysis of the motion to dismiss, such impact is encompassed in the rulings below.

Second, at an April 20, 2023, status conference, Besecker agreed to voluntarily dismiss many of the Besecker II Defendants by no later than May 5, 2023. See Filing No. 49 (noting that Besecker had voluntarily agreed to dismiss Defendants Elisha Amsler, Matthew Myers, Logan Foreman, Rebekah Carkuff, Melvin Hughes, Miranda Geary, Christopher Zelivetz, David Lock, Isaac Crafton, Seth Christian, and Kyle Warren.) That notice has been filed. (Filing No. 53). Accordingly, the remainder of this Order discusses only McPheeters, ACH, and USA Medical as the Besecker II Defendants. With those observations, the Court now turns to the merits.

"The rule against claim splitting prohibits a plaintiff from bringing a new case raising issues arising out of the same transaction or occurrence as an earlier case, when those issues could have been raised in the first litigation." Rexing Quality Eggs v. Rembrandt Enterprises, Inc., 953 F.3d 998, 1002 (7th Cir. 2020). "When a plaintiff brings [] a suit, arising from the same transaction or events underlying a previous suit, simply by a change of legal theory, claim splitting has occurred, and the suit cannot be maintained." Scholz v. United States, 18 F.4th 941, 951 (7th Cir. 2021). A dismissal on claims splitting grounds has been viewed as a matter of docket management and is left to the sound discretion of the district court. Id. at 950 - 51.

Claims splitting in duplicative lawsuits is a subset of the res judicata doctrine. Id. "[A] court should find that a plaintiff split her claims when (1) the second claim is based on the same transaction or occurrence as the first claim and there (2) an identity of parties or their privies." Rexing, 953 F.3d at 1002. The essential question is "whether the first suit, assuming it were final, would preclude the...