Garcia v. Bernalillo Cnty. Metro. Det. Ctr.

1

PHILLIP ANGEL GARCIA, Plaintiff, v. BERNALILLO COUNTY METROPOLITAN DETENTION CENTER, BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF BERNALILLO COUNTY, MEDICAL CONTRACTOR FOR THE DETENTION CENTER, BERNALILLO COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, Defendants.

No. 22-cv-789-DHU-SCY

United States District Court, D. New Mexico

May 26, 2023

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff Phillip Angel Garcia's prisoner's Civil Rights Complaint, filed October 21, 2022. (Doc. 1) (the “Complaint”). Also before the Court are Plaintiff's Motion for Entry of Judgment (Doc. 5), Motion to Appoint Counsel (Doc. 7), Motion for Court Order to Release Plaintiff (Doc. 8), Motion to Compel Discovery (Doc. 9), and Motion for Order to Provide Medical Assistance as to Pancreatic Cancer (Doc. 14). Garcia is a pretrial detainee in the custody of the Bernalillo County Metropolitan Detention Center. He is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis. Pursuant to the screening requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the Court will dismiss the Complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Garcia will be granted an opportunity to file a second amended civil rights complaint. The pending motions are not well taken and shall be denied.

I. Facts.

For the limited purpose of screening the Complaint, the Court assumes the following allegations of fact, taken from the Complaint are true.

Garcia was arrested by the Bernalillo County Sheriff's Department in August 2022. (Doc.1 at 1). During the arrest, he was bitten by a police dog. (Id.). Before taking him to jail, the arresting officers brought him to Lovelace Medical Center where his dog bite injuries were treated. (Id.). When he was released by the hospital, he was booked into the Bernalillo County Metropolitan Detention Center (“MDC”). (Id.). Garcia immediately advised MDC's medical staff of his injuries. (Id.). Garcia appears to allege that medical staff treated his wounds during his intake process. (Id.). Thereafter, medical staff went to his cell twice a day to provide drug detox medications. (Id.). During each of these visits, Garcia advised the attending nurses of pain in his right wrist where the worst of the dog bite injuries was. (Id.). The nurses allegedly told him that his pain was caused by detoxing. (Id.). Garcia disagreed, and he would show the nurses his wrist wound, which worsened daily as it became infected and enlarged. (Id. at 2). The nurses allegedly always responded in the same way, telling Garcia that the problem was in his head and that the was only seeking attention and drugs to get high. (Id.). The allegations in the Complaint do not identify the individual nurses, nor are they named as defendants.

About four days after his arrest, a blood draw doctor, Dr. Terrance, and Mrs. Veronica, a nurse (apparently a different nurse from those who provided detox medications), visited Garcia so they could do a blood draw related to his pancreatic cancer. (Id.). The blood draw was unsuccessful, and Garcia advised Dr. Terrance and Mrs. Veronica that he was dehydrated because the infection in his wrist made it impossible for him to eat. (Id.). Dr. Terrance notified the nurse in charge (apparently the MDC nurse), and Garcia was taken to MDC's medical unit. (Id.). There, the nurse (also unnamed) applied cream to Garcia's wound, wrapped his arm, and allegedly told him to “stop being a cry baby and stop wasting medical's time, [and] that [he] was not dying.” (Id.).

The next day, Dr. Terrance and Mrs. Veronica visited Garcia again for a blood draw. Again, it was unsuccessful. (Id.). Garcia told Dr. Terrance about the severe pain in his wrist and removed the wrap, showing him and Mrs. Veronica the dog bite wound. (Id.). This caused the infection to open which, in turn caused blood, pus, and fatty tissue to ooze out, revealing visible muscle and bone. (Id.). Dr. Terrance and Mrs. Veronica, along with corrections officer Chavez agreed to take him directly to medical, from where Dr. Terrance got approval to transport Garcia to the University of New Mexico Hospital (“UNMH”). (Id.). The UNMH doctors allegedly found that due to a lack of medical attention, the infection in Garcia's wrist had become sceptic and required surgery. (Id. at 3).

Four days later, a preliminary hearing was held in state court pertaining to the charges for which Garcia was arrested. (Id. at 3). Multiple officers from the Bernalillo County Sheriff's Office testified at the hearing. (Id.). Garcia alleges that the officers denied the severity of the police dog attack and swore that the dog had only bitten Garcia on the foot. (Id.). During the preliminary hearing, Garcia was charged with animal cruelty and two misdemeanor offenses in addition to the shoplifting charges that were pending already. (Id.). Garcia alleges that the UNMH medical reports show clearly that he had dog bite marks all over his body, including the severe one on his right wrist. (Id.).

Based on the foregoing, Garcia seeks to state a claim of deliberate indifference to medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution, apparently against MDC, the Board of County Commissioners of Bernalillo County, and the medical contractor for MDC. (Id. at 1). He also seeks to state claims against the Bernalillo County Sheriff's Department for malicious prosecution for charging him with animal cruelty and two additional misdemeanors and excessive use of force. (Id.). Although it is not clear, Garcia may also seek to state claims against the arresting officers under the tort theories of battery and malicious prosecution.

II. Analysis.

A. Pleading Standards Governing a § 1983 Claim.

42 U.S.C. § 1983 provides a vehicle for the vindication of substantive rights guaranteed by the Constitution and laws of the United States. It allows a person whose federal rights have been violated by state or local officials “acting under color of state law” to sue those officials. Id. A § 1983 claim is comprised of two essential elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988); McLaughlin v. Bd. of Trustees of State Colls. of Colo., 215 F.3d 1168, 1172 (10th Cir. 2000). To state a viable claim a plaintiff must allege that each government official, through the official's own individual actions, has violated his Constitutional rights. See Trask v. Franco, 446 F.3d 1036, 1046 (10th Cir. 1998). There must also be a connection between the official conduct and the Constitutional violation. See Fogarty v. Gallegos, 523 F.3d 1147, 1162 (10th Cir. 2008); Trask, 446 F.3d at 1046. To state a § 1983 claim, the complaint must clearly identify “exactly who is alleged to have done what to whom” so that each defendant has notice of the basis of the claims against them, particularly. Robbins v. Okla., 519 F.3d 1242, 1250 (10th Cir. 2008).

B. The Complaint Does Not State a Viable § 1983 Claim Against Any Defendant.

1. § 1983 Does not Allow Vicarious Liability Claims against Government Entities.

To the extent Garcia seeks to state a claim against the Bernalillo County Sheriff's Department, Bernalillo County Board of Commissioners, or MDC's unnamed medical contractor for the alleged actions of its employees, the claim fails as a matter of law. It is well established that a county (or a municipality) cannot ‘be held liable solely because it employs a tortfeasor-or, in other words, [it] cannot be held liable under § 1983 on a respondeat superior theory.' Monell v. Dep't of Social Servs. of City of New York, 436 U.S. 658, 691 (1978). “Rather, municipalities are subject to liability [under § 1983] only for their official policies or customs.” Starrett v. Wadley, 876 F.2d 808, 818 (10th Cir. 1989); see Monell, 436 U.S. at 694 (‘[I]t is when execution of a government's policy or custom, whether made by its lawmakers or by those whose edicts or acts may fairly be said to represent official policy, inflicts the injury that the government as an entity is responsible under § 1983.'). The Monell standard applies equally to claims against a sheriff's department, which are cognizable under § 1983 only as claims against the county itself, Moore v. Diggins, 633 Fed.Appx. 672, 677 (10th Cir. 2015), and to private companies, such as medical providers, that governmental entities hire to perform services in their stead. Carr v. El Paso Cnty., Colorado, 757 Fed.Appx. 651, 655 (10th Cir. 2018).

Garcia has not alleged that an existing policy or custom established or sanctioned by the Bernalillo County Board of Commissioners, MDC's medical contractor, or the Bernalillo County Sheriff's Department caused the Constitutional deprivations alleged in the Complaint. The claims against these defendants must therefore be dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim.

2. MDC is not a Suable Entity.

Garcia's claims against MDC fail as a matter of law. It is well established that a “detention facility is not a person or legally created entity capable of being sued.” White v. Utah, 5 Fed.Appx. 852, 853 (10th Cir. 2001); see Gaines v. U.S. Marshals Serv., 291 Fed.Appx. 134, 135 (10th Cir. 2008) (a county detention center “is not a suable entity”). In the § 1983 context, “suing a detention facility is the equivalent of attempting to sue a building.” Gallegos v. Bernalillo Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Commr's, 272 F.Supp.3d 1256, 1267 (D.N.M. 2017). Any claims against MDC are dismissed with prejudice.

3. The Complaint Does Not Specify Who Did What to Whom.

To state a viable § 1983 claim against an individual defendant, a plaintiff must show how each government-official defendant, through his or her own...