Barrett v. Lawrence Mcdonald, Jill Mosser, Correct Care Solutions, LLC
| Decision Date | 25 September 2015 |
| Docket Number | C.A. No. 14-742-LPS |
| Parties | THEODORE BARRETT, RONALD KEIS, WILBUR MEDLEY, VICTOR TALMO, RAYMOND BROWN, GENE SCHULTZ, DAVID DEJESUS, DERRICK JACKSON, JOSEPH VINCENT, EMILIANO VAZQUEZ, D'ANDRE ROGERS, ELIU CARRERO, WILLIAM BRAMBLE, EUGENE COX, EARL GARRISON, MARKEZ GARRISON, RUSSELL HURST, ALLEN JOLLY, JOSHUA LEWIS, JAMES WELDIN, KEITH WOOLFORD, and JAKE FOX, Plaintiffs, v. LAWRENCE MCDONALD, JILL MOSSER, CORRECT CARE SOLUTIONS, LLC, G.R. JOHNSON, LINDA VALENTINO, LAMONT HAMMOND, MICHAEL SANTINI, DONALD HUTSON, KURT JOHNSON, MICHAEL FABBER, and CONNECTIONS COMMUNITY SUPPORT PROGRAMS, INC. Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Delaware |
Stephen A. Hampton, GRADY & HAMPTON, Dover, DE
Attorney for Plaintiffs Theodore Barrett, Ronald Keis, Wilbur Medley, Victor Talmo, William Bramble, Eugene Cox, Earl Garrison, Markez Garrison, Russell Hurst, Allen Jolly, James Weldin, Keith Woolford, and Jake Fox.
Patrick C. Gallagher, CURLEY, DODGE & FUNK, LLC, Dover, DE
Attorney for Plaintiffs Raymond Brown, Gene Schultz, David DeJesus, Derrick Jackson, Joseph Vincent, Emiliano Vazquez, D'Andre Rogers, and Eliu Carrero.
Daniel A. Griffith, Chad J. Toms, WHITEFORD TAYLOR & PRESTON LLP, Wilmington, DE
Attorneys for Defendants Lawrence McDonald, Correct Care Solutions, LLC, and Jill Mosser.
Michael F. McTaggart, Scott W. Perkins, STATE OF DELAWARE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Wilmington, DE
Attorneys for Defendants G.R. Johnson, Linda Valentino, Lamont Hammond, Michael Santini, Kurt Johnson, and Donald Hutson.
Gary H. Kaplan, Art C. Aranilla, MARSHALL DENNEHEY WARNER COLEMAN & GOGGIN, Wilmington, DE
Attorneys for Defendants Michael Fabber and Connections Community Support Programs, Inc.
September 25, 2015
Wilmington, Delaware
I. INTRODUCTION
Plaintiffs, inmates who are currently or were previously incarcerated at the Sussex Correctional Institute ("SCI"), filed a civil rights complaint against Defendants pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 42 U.S.C. § 1985, and state tort law. Presently before the Court are: (1) Defendants Lawrence McDonald, Correct Care Solutions, LLC, and Jill Mosser's Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim (D.I. 22); (2) Defendants G.R. Johnson, Linda Valentino, and Lamont Hammond's Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim (D.I. 24); and (3) Defendants Michael Fabber and Connections Community Support Programs, Inc.'s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (D.I. 45).
II. BACKGROUND
On May 9, 2014, Plaintiffs Theodore Barrett, Ronald Keis, Wilbur Medley, Victor Talmo, Raymond Brown, Gene Schultz, David DeJesus, Derrick Jackson, and Joseph Vincent filed a Complaint in the Superior Court of the State of Delaware in and for New Castle County alleging, inter alia, violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Each claim arises out of alleged sexual abuse by Defendant Lawrence McDonald during medical examinations while Plaintiffs were inmates. (Id. at ¶ 1) This original Complaint alleged a cover-up including four additional Defendants: Jill Mosser, G.R. Johnson, Linda Valentino, and Lamont Hammond. (Id. at ¶ 2) It also named as a Defendant Correct Care Solutions ("CCS"), which had a contract to provide medical services at SCI pursuant to a contract with the Delaware Department of Correction ("DOC"). (Id. at ¶¶ 1, 21) On June 13, 2014, Defendants Mosser and CCS filed a notice of removal in this Court. (D.I. 1)
On August 11, 2014, based on a stipulation of the parties, Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint. (D.I. 20) The Amended Complaint added thirteen more Plaintiffs and five additional Defendants: Michael Santini, Kurt Johnson, Donald Hutson, Connections Community Support Programs Inc. ("Connections"), and Michael Fabber. (Id.; see also D.I. 14) Each of the additional Plaintiffs also claimed sexual abuse by McDonald during their time as inmates at SCI. (D.I. 20 at ¶¶ 15-27) The Amended Complaint also added claims by the original Plaintiffs against the new Defendants for retaliation in response to the filing of the original complaint. (Id. at ¶¶ 290-321)
On September 2, 2014, two sets of Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. The first was filed by Lawrence McDonald, Jill Mosser, and CCS (collectively, "the CCS Defendants"). (D.I. 22) The second was filed by G.R. Johnson, Linda Valentino, and Lamont Hammond (collectively, "the State Defendants"). (D.I. 24) On November 10, 2014, answers to the complaint were filed by Michael Santini, Kurt Johnson, and Donald Hutson (D.I. 43), as well as Fabber and Connections (collectively, "the Connections Defendants") (D.I. 44). On November 24, 2014, the Connections Defendants filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings. (D.I. 45) After reviewing the parties' extensive but not entirely clear briefing (D.I. 23; D.I. 25; D.I. 27; D.I. 28; D.I. 29; D.I. 30; D.I. 40; D.I. 41; D.I. 53; D.I. 54; D.I. 55), the Court ordered Plaintiffs "to submit . . . a chart identifying, for each Plaintiff, the claims they are asserting and the Defendant(s) against whom they are asserting each claim . . . [as well as] for each claim, the portions of the Complaint which provide the factual basis for each claim." (D.I. 59) Plaintiffs submitted these charts on February 23, 2015. (D.I. 61; D.I. 62) The Court heard oral argument on all three motions on February 25, 2015. ("Tr.")
III. LEGAL STANDARDS
Evaluating a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) requires the Court to accept as true all material allegations of the complaint. See Spruill v. Gillis, 372 F.3d 218, 223 (3d Cir. 2004). "The issue is not whether a plaintiff will ultimately prevail but whether the claimant is entitled to offer evidence to support the claims." In re Burlington Coat Factory Sec. Litig., 114 F.3d 1410, 1420 (3d Cir. 1997) (internal quotation marks omitted). Thus, the Court may grant such a morion to dismiss only if, after "accepting all well-pleaded allegations in the complaint as true, and viewing them in the light most favorable to plaintiff, plaintiff is not entitled to relief." Maio v. Aetna, Inc., 221 F.3d 472, 481-82 (3d Cir. 2000) (internal quotation marks omitted).
However, "[t]o survive a motion to dismiss, a civil plaintiff must allege facts that 'raise a right to relief above the speculative level on the assumption that the allegations in the complaint are true (even if doubtful in fact).'" Victaulic Co. v. Tieman, 499 F.3d 227, 234 (3d Cir. 2007) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). A claim is facially plausible "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 (2009). At bottom, "[t]he complaint must state enough facts to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence of [each] necessary element" of a plaintiff's claim. Wilkerson v. New Media Tech. Charter Sch. Inc., 522 F.3d 315, 321 (3d Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks omitted).
The Court is not obligated to accept as true "bald assertions," Morse v. Lower MerionSch. Dist., 132 F.3d 902, 906 (3d Cir. 1997) (internal quotation marks omitted), "unsupported conclusions and unwarranted inferences," Schuylkill Energy Res., Inc. v. Pa. Power & Light Co., 113 F.3d 405, 417 (3d Cir. 1997), or allegations that are "self-evidently false," Nami v. Fauver, 82 F.3d 63, 69 (3d Cir. 1996). "[A] complaint may be subject to dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) when an affirmative defense . . . appears on its face." ALA, Inc. v. CCAIR, Inc., 29 F.3d 855, 859 (3d Cir. 1994).
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c), a party may move for judgment on the pleadings "[a]fter the pleadings are closed - but early enough not to delay trial." When evaluating a motion for judgment on the pleadings, the Court must accept all factual allegations in a complaint as true and view them in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. See Rosenau v. Unifund Corp., 539 F.3d 218, 221 (3d Cir. 2008). A Rule 12(c) motion will not be granted "unless the movant clearly establishes that no material issue of fact remains to be resolved and that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Id.; see also Maio, 221 F.3d at 482. This is the same standard as a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. See Turbe v. Gov't of Virgin Is., 938 F.2d 427, 428 (3d Cir. 1991). "The purpose of judgment on the pleadings is to dispose of claims where the material facts are undisputed and judgment can be entered on the competing pleadings and exhibits thereto, and documents incorporated by reference." Venetec Int'l, Inc. v. Nexus Med., LLC, 541 F. Supp. 2d 612, 617 (D. Del. 2008); see also In re Burlington Coat Factory Sec. Litig., 114 F.3d at 1426 ().
IV. DISCUSSION
Resolution of the three pending motions presents a somewhat daunting task for the Court. There are over 600 claims raised by the 22 Plaintiffs against 11 different Defendants. (D.I. 61; D.I. 62) The theories of liability are numerous, arising under both federal and state law, including negligence, assault and battery, medical malpractice, deliberate indifference to serious medical needs, and civil rights conspiracy. To address some of the issues presented, the Court must discuss the factual allegations of each individual Plaintiff.
Further exacerbating the challenge before the Court is that the Amended Complaint runs to 79 pages and the motions implicate the pleading requirements for numerous legal theories and affirmative defenses. Moreover, it was difficult for the Court to determine from the Amended Complaint and briefing exactly what claims are being alleged by each Plaintiff and against which Defendants. In the chart the Court ordered, Plaintiffs allege...
To continue reading
Request your trial