Estate of Nunoz v. Ford

402 F.Supp.3d 344

ESTATE OF Rodolfo MUNOZ, Jr., Deceased, BY Catherine RUELAS, Independent Administrator and Representative, Plaintiff,

v.Officer Carla FORD, et al., Defendants.

Case No. 6:18-CV-253-JDK

United States District Court, E.D. Texas, Tyler Division.

Signed August 6, 2019

Gregory Eugene Kulis, Gregory E. Kulis & Associates, Ltd., Chicago, IL, for Plaintiff.

Ann Leitch Hahn, Philip Trent Peroyea, Office of The Attorney General-Law Enforcement Defense Div., Austin, TX, for Defendants.

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS

JEREMY D. KERNODLE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

This case arises out of the tragic suicide of Rodolfo Munoz, Jr. while he was an inmate at the Coffield Unit in Tennessee Colony, Texas. Plaintiff Catherine Ruelas, Munoz's mother and the administrator and representative of his estate, alleges that prison officials were deliberately indifferent to Munoz's condition and violated his rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. Ruelas seeks compensatory and punitive damages under 28 U.S.C. § 1983.

Before the Court is a motion to dismiss filed by three Defendants—Officers Michael A. Collum, Carla Ford, and Brennan F. Shay. Docket No. 38. For the reasons stated below, the Court GRANTS the motion. Further, because Plaintiff has failed to serve any other Defendant, the Court will permit Plaintiff an additional thirty days in which to properly serve Defendants Jeffrey A. DeSilva, Ronnie Lee Stephens, Robert S. Jones, Prince Charles Warren, and John E. LaBlanc. If Plaintiff fails to perfect service within that period, the Court will dismiss the action against the remaining Defendants for lack of prosecution.

BACKGROUND

As required by established law, the Court accepts as true Plaintiff's well-pleaded facts and views them in the light most favorable to Plaintiff. See, e.g. , Raj v. La. State Univ. , 714 F.3d 322, 330 (5th Cir. 2013).

In June 2016, Rodolfo Munoz, Jr. was an inmate at a correctional facility located in Tennessee Colony, Texas, within the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. Docket No. 37 at ¶¶ 4–5. On June 28, 2016, Munoz was found dead, having hanged himself in his cell. Id. at ¶¶ 21–24. Plaintiff, who is represented by counsel, alleges that Munoz previously filed "an I-60 report[,] which on information is a report concerning the safety of an inmate." Id. at ¶ 9. According to Plaintiff, the officers assigned to Munoz's wing "deliberately ignored Rodolfo Munoz's safety concerns and I-60 submission." Id. at ¶ 11. They also failed to "physically check the well-being of the inmate on the morning of June 28, 2016, knowing he was possibly suicidal and not feeling well and had recently raised concerns for his safety and/or for help." Id. at ¶ 12. Plaintiff alleges that Prison Warden Jeffery Catoe later told Plaintiff that "the defendants did not check on [Munoz] every thirty (30) minutes." Id. at ¶ 16.

According to Plaintiff, Defendants "knew that ... Munoz ... was exhibiting signs and symptoms of distress and hopelessness [and] indicating an intent for suicide," and should therefore have "placed [him] in a mental health high risk status [and] provided [him with] medical care." Id. at ¶ 19. Instead, Defendants "failed to provide him with any medical treatment or even physically observe him for long periods of time, up to and including the time he was found hanging." Id. Plaintiff asserts that Defendants were "deliberately indifferent to [Munoz's] high risk of suicide and intentionally ignored his condition." Id. at ¶ 20. Their conduct was "unreasonable and violated [Munoz's] rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution to due process of and equal protection [sic], and violated 42 U.S.C. § 1983." Id. at ¶ 31. Plaintiff demands "actual or compensatory damages against Defendants ... and because these Defendants acted maliciously, wantonly, or oppressively, punitive damages against Defendants in their individual capacities," plus fees and costs. Id. at ¶ 32.

Three Defendants, Officers Michael A. Collum, Carla Ford, and Brennan F. Shay, filed a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Docket No. 38. These Defendants argue that (1) the complaint fails to allege their personal involvement in depriving Munoz of his constitutional rights and (2) they are entitled to qualified immunity. Id. Plaintiff failed to file a response to the motion. On July 5, 2019, the Court ordered Plaintiff to submit a reply "tailored to the assertion of qualified immunity [which] fairly engage[s] [the] allegations" raised by the Defendants in their motion to dismiss (Docket No. 38) pursuant to Schultea v. Wood , 47 F.3d 1427, 1433 (5th Cir. 1995) (en banc). Plaintiff did not file the requested reply.¹

LEGAL BACKGROUND

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) provides that a complaint must include "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." The statement "must simply ‘give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff's claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’ " Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A. , 534 U.S. 506, 512, 122 S.Ct. 992, 152 L.Ed.2d 1 (2002) (quoting Conley v. Gibson , 355 U.S. 41, 47, 78 S.Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957) ). A complaint must plead "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007). A claim will have "facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009). In reviewing claims for plausibility, the Court must, as noted above, accept "all well-pleaded facts in the complaint as true and viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff." Raj v. La. State Univ. , 714 F.3d 322, 330 (5th Cir. 2013).

Under Rule 12(b)(6), a defendant may move to dismiss a claim for failing to properly state a claim. The Fifth Circuit has said that such motions are "viewed with disfavor and are rarely granted." Lormand v. U.S. Unwired, Inc. , 565 F.3d 228, 232 (5th Cir. 2009) (quoting Test Masters Educ. Servs., Inc. v. Singh , 428 F.3d 559, 570 (5th Cir. 2005) ); see Lowrey v. Texas A & M Univ. Sys. , 117 F.3d 242, 247 (5th Cir. 1997) (quoting Kaiser Aluminum & Chem. Sales, Inc. v. Avondale Shipyards, Inc. , 677 F.2d 1045, 1050 (5th Cir. 1982) ); see also Altman v. Key Energy Servs., LLC , 2012 WL 4033336, at *2 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 12, 2012). A claim cannot be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) unless the plaintiff "would not be entitled to relief under any set of facts or any possible theory that [it] could prove consistent with the allegations in the complaint." Muhammad v. Dallas Cnty. Cmty. Supervision & Corrs. Dep't , 479 F.3d 377, 380 (5th Cir. 2007) (citing Jones v. Greninger , 188 F.3d 322, 324 (5th Cir. 1999) ); see also Altman , 2012 WL 4033336, at *1. It must appear beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of the claim entitling them to relief. Griffith v. Kroger Co. , 2008 WL 11347989, at *2 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 7, 2008) (citing Conley , 355 U.S. at 45–46, 78 S.Ct. 99 ).

When a defendant asserts the defense of qualified immunity in a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), " ‘the district court must’—as always—do no more than determine whether the plaintiff has ‘file[d] a short and plain statement of his complaint, a statement that rests on more than conclusions alone.’ " Anderson v. Valdez , 845 F.3d 580, 589–90 (5th Cir. 2016) (quoting Schultea v. Wood , 47 F.3d 1427, 1433 (5th Cir. 1995) ). "After applying this general pleading standard to the complaint, the court may [then], in its discretion, insist that a plaintiff file a reply tailored to [the defendant's] answer [or motion to dismiss] pleading the defense of qualified immunity." Id. (quoting Schultea , 47 F.3d at 1433–34 ) (alteration in original). Such replies "shall be simple, concise, and direct." Id. (quoting Schultea , 47 F.3d at 1433 ). The Fifth Circuit has repeatedly held that "the heightened pleading standard derived from Rule 9 does not apply to the complaint or to any reply merely because an answer or motion to dismiss asserts a defense of qualified immunity." Id ; see also Brown v. City of Houston , 297 F. Supp. 3d 748, 773–74 (S.D. Tex. 2017). Nevertheless, when a plaintiff files a reply addressing qualified immunity, he must "plead more than conclusions." Morgan v. Hubert , 335 F. App'x 466, 469 (5th Cir. 2009). " ‘[A] plaintiff cannot be allowed to rest on general characterizations, but must speak to the factual particulars of the alleged actions, at least when those facts are known to the plaintiff and are not peculiarly within the knowledge of defendants.’ " Id. (quoting Schultea , 47 F.3d at 1432 ). "Heightened pleading requires allegations of fact focusing specifically on the conduct of the individual who caused the plaintiffs' injury." Reyes v. Sazan , 168 F.3d 158, 161 (5th Cir. 1999).²

ANALYSIS

Defendants raise two independent arguments for dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6). First, they contend that the complaint fails to allege they were "personally involved in the alleged constitutional violations." Docket No. 38 at 3–4. Second, Defendants claim they are entitled to qualified immunity. Id. at 4–6. The Court addresses each argument in turn.

A.

It is well-established that "[p]ersonal involvement is an essential element of a civil rights cause of action" under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Hinojosa v. Livingston , 807 F.3d 657, 668 (5th Cir. 2015) (citing Thompson v. Steele , 709 F.2d 381, 382 (5th Cir. 1983) ; see Doe v. Taylor Indep. Sch. Dist. , 15 F.3d 443, 452 (5th Cir. 1994) (en banc). Supervisors are not liable for the conduct of their subordinates. See Hinojosa , 807 F.3d at 668 ; see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 677, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009). Officials are not...