Ferrell v. Walton

1

JOHNNY VAN FERRELL, JR., Plaintiff, v. SCOTT WALTON, et al., Defendants.

No. 22-CV-0133-GKF-JFJ

United States District Court, N.D. Oklahoma

June 6, 2023

OPINION AND ORDER

GREGORY Y. FRIZZELL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

Plaintiff Johnny Van Ferrell, Jr., a state prisoner appearing pro se and proceeding in forma pauperis, brings this federal civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff asserts claims for deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs and unconstitutional conditions of confinement. Before the Court are: (1) Plaintiff's motion seeking leave to identify John Doe defendants (Dkt. 53); the motion to dismiss of Defendant Turn Key Health Clinics, LLC (Dkt. 38); and (3) the motion to dismiss of Defendants Scott Walton, John Sappington, and Zach Starkey (Dkt. 41). The Court addresses each motion in turn.

I. BACKGROUND

This matter arises from events alleged to have occurred while Plaintiff was housed as a pretrial detainee at the Amos G Ward Detention Facility (“Facility”), located in Claremore, Oklahoma. Plaintiff brings claims against Sheriff Scott Walton, Undersheriff John Sappington, and Captain Zach Starkey in their individual and official capacities, as well as Turn Key Health Clinics, LLC and various John Doe and Jane Doe defendants. Dkt. 1, at 2-4, 11-14. He seeks injunctive relief, as well as compensatory and punitive damages. Id. at 6.

Plaintiff alleges that on September 1, 2021, he tested positive for COVID-19 and was placed in a medical observation cell for quarantine. Id. at 18. Plaintiff told Facility staff that he believed the result was a “false positive” resulting from a COVID-19 vaccine he received five days prior. Id. Plaintiff claims that the medical observation cell contained mold around the sink, toilet, and air vent. Id. at 19, 25. He alleges that “[w]hen [he] entered [the medical observation cell], he cleaned mold from the exhaust air vent, feces from the lid of [the] toilet, sink and floor[,] and swept up 18 crumbles of feces wipe toilet paper from [the] floor.” Id. at 25. He alleges that he requested a broom, mop, and disinfectant “to sanitize the cell floor, sink [and] toilet,” but cleaning supplies were not provided. Id. at 19, 25.

Plaintiff's temperature was 96.8 degrees on September 2, but rose to 102.3 degrees on September 3. Id. at 19. Plaintiff claims he woke with a pain in his chest and experienced vertigo. Id. He was seen by medical staff, who “dismissed Plaintiff's ‘other than COVID Complaint'” and provided “a crushed up [Ibuprofen].” Id. His temperature continued to rise over the next few days, reaching 103.9 degrees on September 5, and 104.1 degrees on September 6. Id. at 20. Medical staff monitored Plaintiff twice each day. Id. Plaintiff requested a doctor on September 6, but was told that, because it was Labor Day, the Facility was too short staffed. Id. Plaintiff claims that “[a]t one point [he] could not even rise up from his mattress on the floor, so the LPN came in the cell, lifted [his] head, poured [Ibuprofen] and water into [his] mouth, and left.” Id. His temperature at the time was 102.9 degrees. Id.

Plaintiff alleges that on the morning of September 7, 2021, he requested a doctor again. Specifically, Plaintiff states:

During breakfast call . . ., Officer Hubbard came in[.] Plaintiff stated (as he was lying on mattress unable to move) to ‘get him a doctor or a body bag, he was leaving this cell today.' She shut the door, and left Plaintiff lying on floor. Sometime after that, LPN . . . Dustin came in and screamed ‘What is wrong with you?'(noticing the sever[e] deteriorated state and unresponsive state Plaintiff was in). Plaintiff remembers hearing him say “Get him up, I'm going to call the provider and get a wheelchair.”

Dkt. 1, at 20. Plaintiff was placed in a wheelchair and transported to a hospital, where he was diagnosed with pneumonia. Id. at 20-21. He contends that hospital staff informed him that the pneumonia was caused by breathing in black mold and that the “lack of medical attention (wrong diagnosis) and treatment, along with his prolonged high temperature (over 101 [degrees] for 4 ½ days), led to the permanent loss of up to 40% of his lung capacity (now has 21%),” as well as “extreme emphysema” and blood clots in his legs. Id. at 21.

Plaintiff brings two claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983: (1) a claim of unconstitutional conditions of confinement based on the alleged “fail[ure] to provide . . . a safe, secure an[d] disease free environment,” and (2) a claim of deliberate indifference to Plaintiff's serious medical needs based on the alleged misdiagnosis of his condition and lack of medical attention. Dkt. 1, at 18, 22.^[1]

II. PLAINTIFF'S “MOTION TO PROVIDE IDENTIFICATION OF DEFENDANTS ‘JOHN AND JANE DOES AGW STAFF' AND ‘JANE DOES TURN KEY HEALTH CLINICS STAFF'”

Plaintiff now seeks leave to identify the John and Jane Doe defendants referenced in his Complaint. Specifically, the Complaint names “unknown LPN providers for September 3-7, 2021/am and pm shifts,” who Plaintiff claims failed to properly diagnose and treat Plaintiff or perform their gatekeeper function. Dkt. 1, at 4, 13. The Complaint further names “unknown detention officers and Rogers County Deputies on shift September 3-7, 2021 (am and pm shifts),” who Plaintiff alleges failed to “inform administration on medical of Plaintiff['s] deteriorating state” and “failed to correct the unsanitary, unclean, disease ridden cells.” Id. at 4, 14. Plaintiff sues these defendants in their individual and official capacities. Id. at 4.

In his motion, Plaintiff identifies the “LPN providers” as Turn Key Health Clinics, LLC staff members Dustin Powers, Amy Moore, Amity Williams, Jennifer Ragsdale, Tara Adams, Jessica Mobley, Victoria Stover, Casey Combs, and Carly Parris (“TKHC Defendants”). Dkt. 53, at 3-4. He states that these individuals “failed to follow prescribed medicational [sic] routines for disbursement of medications” and failed to diagnose or report Plaintiff's medical emergency. Id. at 4. Plaintiff then identifies the “unknown detention officers and Rogers County Deputies” as Lt. Brandon Massingale, Daniel Johnson, Sgt. Gabriel Cantrell, Becca Matlock-Hubbard,^[2] Sgt. Daphine Sims, and Cpl. Coby Williams (“Facility Defendants”). Id. at 2-3. Plaintiff states that Massingale is the Facility's assistant jail administrator, that he had “daily contact with Plaintiff,” and that he was a “decision maker” for “all incidents, emergencies, or altercations.” Dkt. 53, at 2. Plaintiff claims that Johnson, Cantrell, Matlock-Hubbard, Sims, and Williams lacked training and disregarded policies, including a policy to provide hourly “deck checks.” Id. at 3.

Defendants filed a joint response (Dkt. 57) in opposition to the motion. Construing Plaintiff's motion as a request to amend his pleading, Defendants argue that the motion should be denied because it fails to comply with the Court's local rules for seeking amendments, see LCvR7-1(h), and because amendment would be futile. Plaintiff did not submit a reply.

Substitution of a named defendant in place of an unknown “John Doe” defendant “amount[s] to adding a new party.” Garrett v. Fleming, 362 F.3d 692, 696 (10th Cir. 2004). While Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure prescribes “that leave to amend a complaint shall be freely given when justice so requires,” the Court “may refuse to allow amendment if it would be futile.” Full Life Hospice, LLC v. Sebelius, 709 F.3d 1012, 1018 (10th Cir. 2013). “A proposed amendment is futile if the complaint, as amended, would be subject to dismissal.” Bradley v. Val-Mejias, 379 F.3d 892, 901 (10th Cir. 2004) (quoting Jefferson Cnty. Sch. Dist. v. Moody's Investor's Servs., 175 F.3d 848, 859 (10th Cir. 1999)). For the reasons discussed herein, the Court determines that amendment of Plaintiff's Complaint to name the formerly unidentified parties would be futile.

a. TKHC Defendants

Plaintiff claims the TKHC Defendants provided constitutionally inadequate medical care and failed to perform their gatekeeper function as medical professionals. The Eighth Amendment's proscription against cruel and unusual punishment entitles convicted inmates to a “certain minimum standard of medical care while incarcerated.” Clark v. Colbert, 895 F.3d 1258, 1267 (10th Cir. 2018). This same standard of medical care is applicable to pretrial detainees through the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause, and the Court “applies an analysis identical to that applied in Eighth Amendment cases brought pursuant to § 1983” when analyzing medical care provided to a pretrial detainee. Estate of Beauford v. Mesa Cnty., 35 F.4th 1248, 1262 (10th Cir. 2022) (quoting Olsen v. Layton Hills Mall, 312 F.3d 1304, 1315 (10th Cir. 2002)).

Under this standard, a constitutional violation occurs if a prison official is “deliberate[ly] indifferen[t] to an inmate's serious medical needs.” Sealock v Colorado, 218 F.3d 1205, 1209 (10th Cir. 2000). The test for constitutional liability “involves both an objective and a subjective component.” Id. The objective component is met if “the deprivation at issue was . . . ‘sufficiently serious.'” Mata v. Saiz, 427 F.3d 745, 751 (10th Cir. 2005) (quoting Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994)). A “medical need is sufficiently serious if it is one that has been diagnosed by a physician as mandating treatment or one that is so obvious that even a lay person would easily recognize the necessity for a doctor's attention.” Id. (quoting Sealock, 218 F.3d at 1209). “The subjective component is satisfied if the official ‘knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or safety; the official must both be aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial...