Coley v. Lucas Cnty.

Denise M. Coley, et. al., Plaintiff, v. Lucas County, Ohio, et al., Defendants.

Case No. 3:09 CV 8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION

Date: January 23, 2014

MEMORANDUM OPINIONAND ORDER

I. Introduction

This matter is before the Court on Defendant (now retired) Sheriff James Telb's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and/or Motion to Dismiss, filed on August 16, 2013 (Docket No. 90). Plaintiffs filed their Opposition in an Omnibus Brief on September 25, 2013 (Docket No. 101). Defendant Telb filed a Reply on October 21, 2013 (Docket No. 106). For the reasons that follow, the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and/or Motion to Dismiss is granted in part and denied in part.

II. Parties

Plaintiffs Denise Coley, DeCarlos Benton, Maliki Larmond, and Carla Benton (collectively referred to as "Plaintiffs") are the biological relatives of decedent Carlton Lenard Benton ("Benton"), who died while in custody in the Lucas County Jail, in Lucas County, Ohio.

Defendants include the Lucas County Sheriff's Office, Lucas County Sheriff's Deputies John Gray ("Gray") and Jay Schmeltz ("Schmeltz"), Lucas County Sheriff's Captain Robert McBroom ("McBroom"), and Lucas County Sheriff (now retired) James Telb ("Defendant Telb"). All Defendants are current or former employees of Lucas County and are being sued in both their individual and respective official capacities. It is Defendant Telb's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and/or Motion to Dismiss that is now before this Court.

III. Factual Background

In February 2004, Benton was taken into custody by the Lucas County Sheriff's Office on suspicion of murder (Docket No. 21, p. 3 of 11). While in custody awaiting trial, Benton died (Docket No. 21, p. 3 of 11).

On April 14, 2009, a federal grand jury filed criminal charges against Gray, Schmeltz , McBroom, and Defendant Telb (Docket No. 21, Attachment 1). In the indictment, Gray was charged with assaulting and strangling Benton using a "sleeper hold," resulting in Benton's bodily injury and death, while acting under color of law (Docket No. 21, Attachment 1, p. 2 of 10). The indictment further charged Schmeltz with assault on Benton and failure to obtain necessary medical care (Docket No. 21, Attachment 1, p. 3 of 10). Thereafter, it was alleged that Gray, Schmeltz, McBroom, and Defendant Telb falsified records concerning the circumstances surrounding Benton's death and made false statements to members of the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI") in an effort to impede, obstruct, and influence an investigation into the matter (Docket No. 21, Attachment 1, pp. 4-10 of 10). The indictment also charged Defendant Telb and McBroom with aiding and abetting the commission of a felony (Docket No. 21, Attachment 1, p. 7 of 10). Following a jury trial, Gray was found guilty of failing to obtainnecessary medical care and treatment for Benton and falsifying various reports (Docket No. 70, ¶¶ 54-55). Schmeltz was found guilty of falsification of a document (Docket No. 70, ¶ 53). The jury returned not guilty verdicts for both McBroom and Defendant Telb.

IV. Procedural Background

On April 29, 2013, Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint against the following Defendants: (1) the County of Lucas, Ohio; (2) the Lucas County Sheriff's Department; (3) Defendant Telb; (4) Gray; (5) Schmeltz; and (6) McBroom (Docket No. 70). Plaintiffs allege multiple causes of action, including: (1) wrongful death; (2) conspiracy to violate Benton's constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985 and Ohio state law; (3) negligence and recklessness; (4) assault and battery; (5) intentional infliction of emotional distress; (6) loss of consortium; (7) aiding and abetting; and (8) violations of the Racketeer and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO") (Docket No. 70). On August 16, 2013, Defendant Telb filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and/or Motion to Dismiss, which is currently pending before this Court, seeking dismissal of all claims against him (Docket No. 90). Plaintiffs filed an Opposition on September 25, 2013 (Docket No. 101). Defendant Telb submitted a Reply on October 21, 2013 (Docket No. 106).

V. Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings Standard

Under FED. R. CIV. P. 12(c), after the pleadings are closed, a party may move for judgment on the pleadings, so long as doing so does not delay trial. Motions for judgment on the pleadings are analyzed under the same standard as motions to dismiss pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6). Sensations, Inc. v. City of Grand Rapids, 526 F.3d 291, 295 (6th Cir. 2008). In ruling on either motion, a court "must construe the complaint in the light most favorable to thenonmoving party, accept the well-pled factual allegations as true, and determine when the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Commercial Money Ctr., Inc. v. Illinois Union Ins. Co., 508 F.3d 327, 336 (6th Cir. 2007). A court "need not accept as true legal conclusions or unwarranted factual inferences." JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Winget, 510 F.3d 577, 581-82 (6th Cir. 2007). While the complaint need not contain detailed factual allegations, a plaintiff bears the obligation of providing the grounds upon which he is entitled to relief. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (internal citations omitted). This requires "more than labels and conclusions." Id. Furthermore, mere "formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do." Id.

VI. Discussion

In his Motion, Defendant Telb argues: (1) he is entitled to both qualified immunity as to the federal claims and immunity under R.C. § 2744; (2) Plaintiffs' conspiracy claims under both federal and state law are not pled with sufficient specificity to state a claim for relief, or, in the alternative, are barred by Ohio's intra-corporate conspiracy doctrine; (3) Ohio does not recognize a civil tort of aiding and abetting; and (4) Plaintiffs fail to state a claim under either the federal or state RICO statutes (Docket No. 90). Upon review of the pleadings, this Court finds: (1) Defendant Telb is not entitled to qualified immunity for the federal claims; (2) Defendant Telb is not entitled to immunity under R.C. § 2744 for Plaintiffs' claims of civil conspiracy, aiding and abetting, excessive force, failure to provide medical care, assault and battery, wrongful death, and RICO violations; (3) Plaintiffs fail to properly plead their claims for conspiracy under either 42 U.S.C. §1983, 42 U.S.C. § 1985, or Ohio state law; (4) even if Plaintiffs had properly pled their conspiracy claims, such claims are barred by the intra-corporateconspiracy doctrine; (5) Ohio does not recognize a civil tort of aiding and abetting; and (6) Plaintiffs fail to properly state a claim for either a federal or state RICO violation.

A. Immunity Under R.C. § 2744

Plaintiffs allege a number of state law claims, including: (1) wrongful death; (2) negligence/recklessness/bad faith; (3) assault and battery; (4) intentional infliction of emotional distress; (5) loss of consortium; (6) civil conspiracy; (7) aiding and abetting; and (8) RICO violations (Docket No. 70). For each claim, Defendant Telb alleges immunity under R.C. § 2744 (Docket No. 90, Attachment 1).

In general, under R.C. § 2744, commonly known as the Political Subdivision Tort Liability Act, "a political subdivision is not liable in damages in a civil action for injury, death, or loss to person or property allegedly caused by any act or omission of the political subdivision or an employee of the political subdivision in connection with a governmental or proprietary function." R.C. § 2744.02(A)(1). A political subdivision is defined as a "municipal corporation, township, county, school district, or other body corporate and politic responsible for governmental activities in a geographic area smaller than that of the state." R.C. § 2744.01(F). Federal courts in this district have held that both the sheriff and the sheriff's deputies are employees of a political subdivision, namely, the county. Sanford v. Cnty. of Lucas, State of Ohio et al., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20774, *24 (N.D. Ohio 2009) (internal citations omitted).

Defendant Telb, like all Defendants in this matter, is being sued both in his official and individual capacities (Docket No. 70, ¶ 6). With regard to immunity under state law, the Sixth Circuit has recognized that

Ohio's immunity statute draws no distinction between suits against an individual government employee in his official as opposed to his personal capacity. An actionagainst an officer in his official capacity is simply another way of pleading an action against the governmental entity itself. If official-capacity claims are nothing more than claims against the county, then it would be appropriate to dismiss the official capacity claims against the employee defendants if such claims have been dismissed against the county.

Chesher v. Neyer, 477 F.3d 784, 797 (6th Cir. 2007) (citing Norwell v. City of Cincinnati, 133 Ohio App.3d 790 (Ohio Ct. App. 1990)). Therefore, in order to determine whether Defendant Telb is immune in his official capacity, this Court must determine whether the governmental entities, namely Lucas County and the Lucas County Sheriff's Office, are immune from suit. See Sanford, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20774 at *28 (citing Chesher, 477 F.3d at 797).

Under the Political Subdivision Tort Liability Act, the Court must use a three-tiered analysis for determining whether the Defendant governmental entities are immune from liability. See Sanford, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20774 at *28. As stated above, the general rule is that political subdivisions engaged in governmental or proprietary functions are "not liable in damages in a civil action for injury, death, or loss to person or property." R.C. § 2744.02(A)(1). Once this immunity is established, the Court must determine whether any of the five exceptions to immunity, listed under R.C. § 2744.02(B), apply. These...