Belknap v. Leon Cnty.
| Decision Date | 03 April 2023 |
| Docket Number | Civil 6:22-CV-01028-ADA-JCM |
| Parties | JENNIFER BELKNAP, et al, Plaintiffs, v. LEON COUNTY, TEXAS, et al, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Texas |
THE HONORABLE ALAN D ALBRIGHT, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
This Report and Recommendation is submitted to the Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b), and Rules 1(f) and 4(b) of Appendix C of the Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, Local Rules for the Assignment of Duties to United States Magistrate Judges. Before the Court are Defendants Leon County, Tisha Spinks, and Harry Vanskike's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 11) and Defendants Jennilee Page and Southern Health Partners, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 18) and the attendant responses and replies thereto. For the following reasons, the undersigned RECOMMENDS Defendants' Motions be GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.
Dakota Belknap (“Decedent”) was booked into Leon County's jail on December 14, 2020. Pls.' Compl. (ECF No. 1) at ⁋13. Jailer Donald Moore completed an intake form for Decedent which Plaintiff alleges contained information indicating that Decedent was suicidal. Id. at ⁋ 13-14. The form stated that Decedent had attempted suicide on December 11, 2020; that he experienced nightmares, flashbacks, or repeated thoughts or feelings related to PTSD or something terrible from his suicide attempt; and that he felt down, depressed, and had little interest or pleasure in doing things before he was arrested. Id. at ⁋14. In response, the jail immediately placed Decedent on suicide watch. Id. Moore then completed the Inmate Mental Condition Report to notify a magistrate of Decedent's risk of suicide. Id. at ⁋16. Sergeant Harry Vanskike signed this form and checked a box next to the word “SUICIDAL.” Id. at ⁋17.
As a result of the intake form, jail staff had an employee of MHMR, Amanda Despain, talk to Decedent. Id. at ⁋18. Despain met with Decedent for around twenty minutes at the jail on December 14. Id. After the meeting, Despain evaluated Decedent on a scale of zero to three, with three being the highest, for his suicide risk. Id. at ⁋19. Despain rated Decedent at a one for suicidal ideation, a one for suicide intent, a one for suicide planning, and a one for suicide history. Id. Plaintiffs allege that this rating was for a single point in time to determine whether Decedent was in crisis when Despain interviewed him. Id. Plaintiffs further allege that Despain believed that Decedent needed to be reevaluated every day. Id. at ⁋⁋ 31, 32. Plaintiff alleges that the jail entrusted Jennilee Page, a licensed vocational nurse, with deciding whether pretrial detainees should remain on suicide watch. Id. at ⁋⁋ 49, 59, 63, 94. Page, an employee with Southern Health Partners (“SHP”), worked at the jail for fifteen hours per week. SHP is a private company that contracts with Leon County to provide medical care to pretrial detainees at Leon County Jail.
The jail took Decedent off suicide watch on December 14. Id. at ⁋⁋ 20, 68-69, 76, 111. The next morning, Jailer Tisha Spinks transferred Decedent to Cell E where he had access to bedding and tie-off points. Id. at ⁋⁋ 93, 77. Before moving Decedent, Spinks consulted with Vanskike. Id. at ⁋⁋ 93, 95. Plaintiffs allege that, in a later interview with Texas Rangers, Vanskike told Spinks, Id. at ⁋ 95.
Spinks and Derrick Sanders, an inmate, delivered Decedent's dinner at around 5:00 p.m. on December 15. Id. at ⁋ 73. When they returned around twenty-five minutes later, they saw that Decedent had hung himself with a sheet tied to his bed. Id. Plaintiffs allege that Decedent had eaten most of the food he was served, indicating that he attempted suicide shortly before he was found. Id. at ⁋ 97.
Spinks shouted for someone to Id. at ⁋ 24. Sanders ran to find Vanskike. Id. at ⁋ 86. Sanders found Vanskike outside smoking a cigarette. Id. After Sanders informed Vanskike that Decedent had been found hanging, Vanskike walked to the booking desk and looked for a seatbelt cutter to cut Decedent's ligature with. Id. at ⁋ 87. After he could not find the cutter, he headed to Decedent's cell. Id. at ⁋88.
Vanskike found Spinks at the door of Decedent's cell. Id. The two went in together, untied Decedent, and laid him on the floor. Id. at ⁋ 88-89. Vanskike asked Spinks if EMS had been called. Id. at ⁋89. Then, Vanskike said, Id. Plaintiffs allege that neither Vanskike nor Spinks provided CPR or any emergency medical treatment to Decedent. Id. at ⁋ 90. Instead, Vanskike locked the cell door and resumed his smoke break. Id. at ⁋⁋ 53, 99.
EMS arrived around twenty minutes later. Id. at ⁋ 114. Paramedics placed an automatic CPR device on Decedent and were able to get a strong pulse. Id. at ⁋44. EMS transported Decedent to the hospital where he was diagnosed with anoxic brain injury. Id. at ⁋ 108. Decedent was pronounced brain dead around two days later. Id. Plaintiffs allege that the delay in care caused Decedent to suffer irreparable brain injury. Id.
Plaintiffs sued Spinks, Vanskike, Leon County, Page, and SHP for violations of Decedent's constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Leon County, Spinks, and Vanskike filed a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim on October 25, 2022. Cty. Defs.' Mot. Page and SHP filed a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim on November 23, 2022. Medical Defs.' Mot.
Upon motion or sua sponte, a court may dismiss an action that fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6); Carroll v. Fort James Corp., 470 F.3d 1171, 1177 (5th Cir. 2006). To survive Rule 8, a nonmovant must plead “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). “The court's task is to determine whether the plaintiff has stated a legally cognizable claim that is plausible, not to evaluate the plaintiff's likelihood of success.” Lone Star Fund V (U.S.), L.P. v. Barclays Bank PLC, 594 F.3d 383, 387 (5th Cir. 2010). The court begins by identifying which allegations are well-pleaded facts and which are legal conclusions or elemental recitations, accepting as true the former and rejecting the latter. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). A court need not blindly accept every allegation of fact; properly pleaded allegations of fact amount to more than just conclusory allegations or legal conclusions “masquerading as factual conclusions.” Taylor v. Books A Million, Inc., 296 F.3d 376, 378 (5th Cir. 2002). The court then determines whether the accepted allegations state a plausible claim to relief. Id. at 379.
“Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level, on the assumption that all the allegations in the complaint are true (even if doubtful in fact).” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. “The court accepts all well-pleaded facts as true, viewing them in the light most favorable to the [nonmovant].” In re Katrina Canal Breaches Litig., 495 F.3d 191, 205 (5th Cir. 2007) (quotation marks omitted). “A claim has facial plausibility when the [nonmovant] pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the [movant] is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft, 556 U.S. at 678. “The plausibility standard . . . asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.” Id. For purposes of Rule 12(b)(6), “pleadings” include the complaint, its attachments, and documents referred to in the complaint and central to a plaintiff's claims. Collins v. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, 224 F.3d 496, 498-499 (5th Cir. 2000).
County Defendants argue that Plaintiffs' claims under the Eighth Amendment fail as a matter of law. Cty. Defs.' Mot. at 9. Plaintiffs did not address this argument in their Response. See generally Pls.' Resp. to Cty. Defs.' Mot (ECF No. 19). The constitutional rights of pretrial detainees are found in the Fourteenth Amendment. Estate of Henson v. Wichita Cty., Tex., 795 F.3d 456, 462 (5th Cir. 2015). The parties do not dispute that Decedent was a pretrial detainee. Pls.' Compl. at ¶ 13. Thus, any claim brought under the Eighth Amendment fails as a matter of law and the Court should grant the County Defendants' Motion on this cause of action.
Plaintiffs sued Defendants Spinks, Vanskike, and Page for violations of Decedent's Fourteenth Amendment rights. Pls.' Compl. at ¶ 147-53. Plaintiffs allege two specific constitutional violations: (1) a failure to prevent Decedent's suicide attempt; and (2) a failure to provide emergency medical care. The individual Defendants argue that Plaintiffs fail to allege that Decedent's rights were violated.
Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983 creates a cause of action against any person who, under color of law, causes another to be deprived of a federally protected constitutional right. 42 U.S.C § 1983. Two allegations are required to state a claim under § 1983. Gomez v. Toledo, 446 U.S. 635, 640 (1980); Manax v. McNamara...
To continue reading
Request your trial