Baugus v. Newsome

• Decision Date: 01 February 2023
• Docket Number: 2:20-cv-04900
• Parties: Phillip M. Baugus, Administrator of the Estate of Michael P. Coburn, Deceased Plaintiff, v. Brandon Newsome, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Ohio

Phillip M. Baugus, Administrator of the Estate of Michael P. Coburn, Deceased Plaintiff,
v.
Brandon Newsome, et al., Defendants.

No. 2:20-cv-04900

United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Eastern Division

February 1, 2023

Elizabeth Preston Deavers Magistrate Judge

OPINION AND ORDER

EDMUND A. SARGUS, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

This matter is before the Court on Defendants Burgess Castle, Warren Davis, Steven Fox, John L. Hinton, Brandon Newsome, and Thomas E Whiston's Motion for Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 51). For the reasons stated herein, the Court GRANTS Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment.

A. Procedural Background

Plaintiff Philip M. Baugus, Administrator of the Estate of Michael P. Coburn, brought a complaint against the above-mentioned Defendants, amongst others, on September 18, 2020. Defendants (ECF No. 1). All Defendants filed their Answer on November 20, 2020. (ECF No. 16). On April 19, 2022, Plaintiff filed his First Motion for Order to Partially Voluntarily Dismiss Without Prejudice against Defendants Thomas E. Whiston, Burgess Castle, Warren Davis, and Steven Fox. (ECF No. 29). This motion was later terminated on May 10, 2022. However, on May 6 of the same year, Plaintiff filed his Second Motion to Voluntarily Dismiss Voluntarily -Partially and Without Prejudice against Thomas E. Whiston, Burgess Castle, and Warren Davis. (ECF No. 33). Defendants timely submitted their Response on May 18. (ECF No. 34). One

1

week later, on May 25, Plaintiff Replied (ECF No. 36). Due to non-compliance with Local Rule 5.1 (c) Plaintiff was required to re-submit his Reply, which he did on August 10, 2022. (ECF No. 39).

Defendants Burgess Castle, Warren Davis, Steven Fox, John L. Hinton, Brandon Newsome, Thomas E Whiston filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on September 15, 2022. (ECF NO. 51). Exactly a week later, the parties Stipulated to the dismissal of Defendants Thomas E. Whiston, Burgess Castle, and Warren Davis. (ECF 60). The Court granted this order on September 26, leaving only John L. Hinton, Brandon Newsome, Thomas E Whiston as Defendants. (ECF No. 61). Plaintiff filed his Response to Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment the next month, on October 6, 2022. (ECF No. 64). The remaining Defendants Replied four days later, on October 10. (ECF No. 66).

On October 31 Plaintiff, finding apparent good cause in Defendants Reply, moved to file a Sur-Reply. (ECF No. 68). This was opposed by Defendants, who Responded the next day. (ECF No. 69). Plaintiff Replied shortly after, on November 7, 2022. (ECF No. 70).

B. Factual Background

In 2018 decedent Michael Coburn was a 27-year-old man living in Morrow County. He resided part time in the home of his grandfather, Phillip Baugus. (ECF No. 46, Page 11,12). Also living in the residence were his mother, Lorrie Robinson, his brother Nicholas Coburn, and his sister, Lindsey Robinson. (Id., Page 12). On November 28, 2018, at around 6 P.M., Michael and Lorrie entered into an argument at their shared residence. (ECF No. 46, Page 28, 29).

Lorrie states the dispute began because “he showed up here high in a very bad state of mind” due to what Lorrie suspected to be “drug use.” (Id., 28). During their dispute, Lorrie heard Michael

2

make threats of suicide. “He was telling me that he was planning to kill himself and told me his plan was he was going to overdose on heroin.” (Id., Page 29). After an indeterminate period of argument, Michael attempted to contact someone, it is unclear who, to take him away from the home. (Id., 29, 37). Lorrie then called 911. (Id., Page 35). Lorrie stated the reason for this 911 call was “Michael's suicidal statements.” (Id.). The incident report confirms she told the 911 operator her son was going to kill himself by overdose. (ECF No. 43, Exhibit G).

After “at least” 10 minutes, Deputy Newsome arrived at Lorrie and Michael's address. (ECF No. 46, Page 36). It appears that during these intervening minutes an individual arrived at the residence and attempted to take Michael away from the home. (Id., Page 37) (ECF No. 43, Exhibit G, Page 3). However, after being informed of the approaching deputy, this person left without Michael. (ECF No. 46, Page 37) (ECF No. 43, Exhibit G, Page 3). Following their departure, Michael attempted to quit the residence by foot, but eventually turned back. (ECF No. 46, Page 37). Shortly after his return, Lorrie met Dpt. Newsome outside.

Lorrie informed Dpt, Newsome that Michael was “threatening suicide,” that he had told her how he was to accomplish this, and that Lorrie “wanted him to be transported to a medical facility.” (ECF No. 46, Pages 38, 39). After a few minutes, Michael joined Lorrie and Dpt. Newsome outside. (Id., 38). Lorrie and Michael soon started quarreling again, creating a “very chaotic situation.” (ECF No. 46, Page 41). However, Michael was cooperative with the Deputy, even going so far as to allow Dpt. Newsome to flick “his flashlight into his eyes to see if he appeared intoxicated.” (Id., 39). Dpt. Newsome found that Michael's “pupils were normal size and reacted to my flashlight every time.” (ECF No. 43, Exhibit G, Page 4). Lorrie, a nurse, disputes this conclusion. She states that Michael's pupils were dilated that evening, and that Michael was visibly high. (ECF No. 46, Page 34).

3

After Dpt. Newsome checked Michael's pupils, he engaged Michael in conversation. According to both Lorrie and Dpt. Newsome, Michael actively responded to the deputy's questions. (ECF No. 46, Page 41) (ECF No. 43, Page 52). Throughout the conversation, and every interaction with officers that night, Michael repeatedly denied he had any desire to harm himself. (ECF No. 46, Page 40, 41) (ECF No. 43, Page 52). He also repeatedly denied being on drugs (ECF No. 46, Page 40). The Deputy's incident report states that he offered to take Michael “to a place which could help him,” but Michael refused. (ECF No. 43, Exhibit G, Page 4). Lorrie disputes that Deputy Newsome actually made this offer but admits Michael said he “didn't need to go to a hospital.” (ECF No. 46, Page 51). At some point Dpt. Newsome asked Lorrie for any written indication that Michael had threatened suicide, but she was unwilling or unable to provide any. (Id., Page 50).

Michael, a diabetic, told Dpt. Newsome in no uncertain terms that he had no desire to kill himself, and that the only thing that would kill him was a lack of insulin. (ECF No. 43, Exhibit G, Page 4) (ECF No. 46, Page 51). Michael told the deputy that he could acquire insulin from a friend he referred to as “Mike.” (ECF No. 43, Exhibit G, Page 4). Deputy Newsome's incident report referred to Mike as a “family friend” (Id.) but Lorrie believed that Michael was getting insulin “from the streets.” (ECF No. 26). His sister, on the other hand, thought Michael got his insulin from a pharmacy. (ECF No. 48, Page 30). There is no indication in the record that Deputy Newsome was informed about the supposedly questionable nature of this insulin, although he did know it was coming from “Mike.” (ECF No. 43, Exhibit G, Page 4). Later that night, right before the deputy drove Michael away from residence, Michael asked his mother to pick up insulin from Mike and deliver it to his ultimate destination. (ECF No. 43, Exhibit G, Page 5) (ECF No. 46, Page 53, 54). Lorrie acquiesced. (ECF No. 43, Exhibit G, Page 5) (ECF

4

No. 46, Page 54). The Deputy was aware of this agreement. (ECF No. 43, Exhibit G, Page 5).

Michael, Lorrie, and Dpt. Newsome stayed outside for a number of minutes but eventually made their way into the home. (ECF No. 46, Page 41,42). There, Dpt. Newsome spoke with Michael's siblings, Lindsey and Nicholas. (ECF No. 46, Page 52). Both denied that Michael had made any suicidal statements that night. (Id.) (ECF No. 63, Page 16). Both expressed frustration at Michael's presence in the home. (ECF No. 43, Exhibit G, Page 4). The mood at the home was tense and chaotic. (ECF No. 46, Pages 41, 53) (ECF No. 43, Exhibit G, Page 4).

Sgt. Fox eventually arrived at the residence to assist Dpt. Newsome. He took Michael outside, away from his family, “to diffuse the situation” as “things had gotten a bit loud.” (ECF No. 46, Page 53) (ECF No. 43, Page 6). Sgt. Fox also questioned Michael, inquiring if he had any desire to harm himself. (ECF No. 43, Exhibit G, Page 6). Michael stated that “he was going to see his daughter today and he didn't want to do anything like that.” (Id.). Sgt. Fox asked Michael if he would like to go to a hospital, but Michael refused. (Id.). Michael told Sgt. Fox he planned to stay at the home of his friend, Korey Levings, that night. (Id.). Dpt. Newsome asked Sgt. Fox if he could give Michael a ride to Mr. Levings residence, and Sgt. Fox signaled his assent. (ECF No. 43, Exhibit G, Page 5). Shortly thereafter, Sgt. Fox asked Dpt. Newsome if his presence was needed. (Id.). Dpt. Newsome stated that it was not, and Sgt. Fox left the scene. (Id.).

The eyewitnesses to this incident disagree on Michael's level of intoxication. Dpt. Newsome apparently believed he was not intoxicated. (ECF No. 43, Exhibit G, Pages 4). He even went so far as to wave off an Emergency Medical Squad that was waiting on standby. (Id.)

5

(ECF No. 43, Page 50). Sgt. Fox's incident report made no mention of Michael's supposed intoxication, nor any abnormal behavior. Michael's sister was unsure if Michael was on drugs. When asked if he appeared to be intoxicated, she answered “Yes. But I also couldn't tell for sure if he was high or if it, was the lack of sleep from the drug use the days prior.” (ECF No. 48, Page 17). Michael's mother, on the other hand, was convinced he was on drugs. (ECF No. 46, Pages 28, 35-36). Michael's brother was similarly confident in that conclusion. (ECF No. 63, Page 12). However, it is not disputed that Michael was able to calmly converse with the officers and that he was cooperative. (ECF No. 46, Page...