Vittetoe v. Blount Cnty.

LISA VITTETOE, individually and as Next of Kin of Jason Adam Myers, Plaintiff, v. BLOUNT COUNTY, et al., Defendants.

No. 3:17-CV-397-HBG

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE

August 26, 2020

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This case is before the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), Rule 73(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the consent of the parties, for all further proceedings, including entry of judgment [Doc. 36].

By way of background, the Court stayed this matter pending review of Plaintiff's lead counsel's disciplinary matter. See [Doc. 105]. The Court notes that the disciplinary matter has been adjudicated, and therefore, the stay in this case is no longer warranted. Accordingly, the Court hereby LIFTS THE STAY.

Prior to the Court entering the stay, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 78]. Plaintiff responded in opposition to the Motion [Doc. 80], and Defendants filed a Reply [Doc. 85]. The Motion is ripe for adjudication. Accordingly, for the reasons further explained below, the Court finds Defendants' Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 78] well taken, and it will be GRANTED.

I. BACKGROUND

The Court will begin with the allegations in the Amended Complaint [Doc. 26] and then turn to the procedural history.

A. Allegations in the Complaint

The Complaint [Doc. 1] in this matter was filed on September 1, 2017, and later amended [Doc. 26] on November 17, 2017. Specifically, the Amended Complaint seeks relief under the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988. In addition, the Amended Complaint states that this action arises under the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act, Tennessee Code Annotated § 29-20-101, and under common law for intentional and/or negligent infliction of emotional distress, loss of companionship, negligence, negligent supervision, deliberate indifference, and gross negligence.

Plaintiff is the mother of Jason Myers ("Myers"), who is now deceased. [Doc. 26 at ¶ 13]. The Amended Complaint alleges that on or about September 1, 2016, Myers and his father had an argument, and the police were called. [Id. at ¶ 19]. The Amended Complaint states that Myers walked to a friend's house and that he and his friend sat outside talking for about thirty minutes. [Id. at ¶ 21]. The Amended Complaint states that Myers talked normally, showed no signs of intoxication, and did not smell of alcohol. [Id. at ¶ 22]. Further, the Amended Complaint states that Myers acted normally, there were no visible marks on him, and he did not have a bloody nose. [Id. at ¶¶ 23-25].

The Amended Complaint avers that several police officers arrived to arrest Myers, who cooperated and complied with all requests of law enforcement during his arrest. [Id. at ¶ 27]. Myers was brought into the Blount County Jail on September 2, 2016, at approximately 1:20 a.m. [Id. at ¶ 28]. The Amended Complaint states that no mugshot was ever taken of Myers and that Myers was placed in a cell with at least five other inmates. [Id. at ¶¶ 29-30]. At approximately 3:00 a.m., an inmate in Myers's cell called for an officer to check on Myers, stating that Myers was barely breathing. [Id. at ¶ 31]. At approximately 4:00 a.m., an officer came out of Myers'scell, and Defendant Atkins was on his cell phone, stating, "You might want to come check him. Can't get him to roll over off his arm. Maybe that's why it's turning blue. He's blue around the mouth." [Id. at ¶ 32]. The Amended Complaint alleges that Defendant Atkins had no sense of urgency and did not act as though the situation was an emergency. [Id. at ¶ 33]. The Amended Complaint avers that the inmates' calls for help continued and that around 5:00 a.m., another inmate was placed in the cell with Myers. [Id. at ¶ 35]. The Amended Complaint states that the inmate could tell that Myers had been beaten. [Id.].

The Amended Complaint states that there was blood on the wall beside Myers and that Myers was lying on the ground on his side facing out, gasping for breath, and clearly in distress. [Id. at ¶¶ 36-37]. A nurse attempted to take Myers's pulse seven times. [Id. at ¶ 38]. The Amended Complaint alleges that other prisoners continued to call the guards to help Myers and that around 6:00 a.m., Defendant Atkins came out of Myers's cell and said, "I need help, and I need help now." [Id. at ¶ 40]. The officers removed Myers from his cell, and one inmate said, "You need to do CPR." [Id. at ¶¶ 41-42]. Another inmate stated, "I think we just witnessed a murder because we called out for two hours." [Id. at ¶ 43]. Defendant Atkins told the inmate to "shut the **** up, or I'll beat you." [Id. at ¶ 44]. Finally, the Amended Complaint alleges that at about 6:16 a.m., Myers was given one round of chest compressions and that at approximately 6:45 a.m., Myers was taken by ambulance to the Blount Memorial Hospital where he was declared dead on arrival. [Id. at ¶¶ 45-46].

B. Procedural History

As mentioned above, the Complaint was filed on September 1, 2017, and later amended on November 17, 2017. [Doc. 26]. Defendants filed their Answers [Docs. 32, 33], and shortly thereafter, Defendant Atkins moved [Doc. 37] for summary judgment and requested that the Courtstay discovery in this matter. The Court granted a limited stay of discovery in order to frame the qualified immunity issue. On March 22, 2019, the Court found that Defendant Atkins was entitled to qualified immunity. [Doc. 77]. Specifically, the Court found that there were no facts to which a reasonable jury could conclude that Defendant Atkins used any force against Myers. With respect to Plaintiff's claim of deliberate indifference to Myers's medical needs, the Court found that Defendant Atkins did not possess a sufficient culpable state of mind in denying medical care because he relied on a nurse who checked Myers's vitals several times throughout the night. The Court found the instant circumstance similar to other cases wherein officers have relied on the judgment of medical staff. For the same reasons, the Court dismissed Plaintiff's negligence, battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, wrongful death, and punitive damages claims against Defendant Atkins. The instant Motion followed.

On July 27, 2019, the Court entered a stay of this matter, given the disciplinary issues with respect to Plaintiffs' lead counsel, Attorney Loring Justice. See In re Loring Edwin Justice, No. 1:11-mc-3 (E.D. Tenn. 2011). In April 2020, the Chief District Judge entered an order regarding the disciplinary issues. Given that the disciplinary issues have been adjudicated, the Court finds it appropriate to lift the stay of this matter and resolve the pending Motion to Dismiss.

II. POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES

Defendants move pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) to dismiss this matter for eight reasons. First, Defendants state that the official capacity claims against any defendant should be dismissed because such claims are against Defendant Blount County. Further, Defendants assert that the Blount County Sheriff's Office should be dismissed because it is not an entity capable of being sued. Third, Defendants argue that any claim against unidentified parties should be dismissed because such claims would be barred by the statute of limitations. Fourth,Defendants state that Defendant Blount County is entitled to be dismissed for any claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because Plaintiff has not pled sufficient facts to support any claims against it for violating Myers's constitutional rights. Fifth, Defendants state that Defendant Blount County is entitled to be dismissed as to any state law claims because they are superfluous or otherwise not cognizable, it has immunity for such claims, and/or Plaintiff has not pled sufficient facts to support any claim. Finally, Defendants assert that Defendant Blount County is not liable for any punitive damages or loss of consortium damages under federal and state law.

Plaintiff argues that Defendants never conferred with her prior to filing the Motion to Dismiss, and therefore, the Motion should be stricken. In addition, Plaintiff states that Defendants cite to the original Complaint and not the Amended Complaint, and therefore, their Motion to Dismiss should be refiled. Plaintiff states that qualified immunity is not available to municipalities. Plaintiff asserts that the Court ruled that Officer Atkins is entitled to qualified immunity under the subjective prong but not the objective prong. Plaintiff argues that under Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Serv., 436 U.S. 658 (1978), there is no subjective inquiry with respect to the remaining Defendants.

Plaintiff further asserts that the claims against Sheriff Berrong reflect facts indicative of individual capacity claims, but Defendants make no contention as to which claims are individual versus official. Plaintiff states that she is not required to hypothesize against herself. Plaintiff does not object to the Court dismissing the Blount County Sheriff's Office or the Doe Defendants.

In addition, Plaintiff states that just because Officer Atkins did not use excessive force does not mean that Myers did not experience excessive force. Plaintiff states that she should be permitted to amend the Amended Complaint to plead facts that establish Defendants' liability or from which it may be plausibly inferred. Plaintiff argues that the danger of overdosing inintoxicated inmates is not uncommon and almost certain to reoccur. Plaintiff states that Defendants have not developed their argument on why her state law claims against them should be dismissed. Further, Plaintiff argues that the undersigned did not find that no official committed battery or infliction of emotional distress. Plaintiff argues that the Court should not dismiss her federal claims, but if the Court does so, then it should not address the state law claims. In addition, Plaintiff asserts that she is allowed damages...