Chavez v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs of Sierra Cnty.
| Decision Date | 30 September 2012 |
| Docket Number | No. CIV 11–1008 JB/LAM.,CIV 11–1008 JB/LAM. |
| Citation | 899 F.Supp.2d 1163 |
| Parties | Juan Fabian CHAVEZ, Plaintiff, v. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF SIERRA COUNTY, Sierra County Detention Center, Supervisor Detention Officer John Doe, Medical Detention Officer David Estavillo, Detention Officer John Doe, and Detention Officer Sgt. C. Chavez, each officer individually and each in their official capacities, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of New Mexico |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Jose R. Coronado, G. Greg Valdez, Las Cruces, NM, for the Plaintiff.
Michael J. Thomas, Law Office of Michael J. Thomas, LLC, Raul A. Carrillo, Jr., Daniel D. James, Steven L. Lovett, Carrillo Law Firm, Las Cruces, NM, for the Defendants.
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, filed February 7, 2012 (Doc. 16).1 The Court held a hearing on May 31, 2012. The primary issues are: (i) whether the Court should dismiss Defendant Sierra County Detention Center from the lawsuit where Plaintiff Juan Fabian Chavez concedes he is not alleging that its actions violated his constitutional rights; (ii) whether the Court should dismiss J. Chavez's Civil Complaint for Damages, filed August 22, 2011 (Doc. 1–1), in its entirety and without prejudice, because it does not meet the requirements of rule 8(a) and rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; and (iii) whether the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over J. Chavez's state law claims. Because a government entity can be held liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 only for its own acts or policies, and not for the conduct of its employees, the Court will dismiss the Sierra County Detention Center from the lawsuit.2 Because the Court finds that J. Chavez's right to be provided adequate medical care as a pretrial detainee is protected under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, rather than under the Eighth Amendment, as he pleaded, the Court will grant the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss without prejudice to his repleading and allow J. Chavez ten days to fix the deficiencies in his complaint and re-file. With only state law claims remaining after dismissal of the § 1983 claims, the Court will not at this time exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims in Count III and Count IV, and will dismiss the claims without prejudice to repleading.
On September 6, 2009, J. Chavez's vehicle was stopped just outside of the Sierra County Detention Center (“SCDC”). See Complaint ¶ 7, at 3. J. Chavez was booked into the SCDC. He informed the officers and SCDC personnel that he was diabetic and had high blood pressure, that he needed insulin and Glucophage3 daily, and that his medications were in his vehicle. See Complaint ¶ 11, at 4. J. Chavez was put in a cell.
Every thirty minutes, a detention officer made a walk-through of the cell block. Over the next forty-eight hours, J. Chavez asked every detention officer that he saw to help him get his medication to avoid grave illness. See Complaint ¶ 13–14, at 4. He made written requests in addition to the verbal requests. See Complaint ¶ 19, at 5. J. Chavez made specific requests to Defendant Sergeant C. Chavez. See Complaint ¶ 17, at 5.
Some of the detention officers said that they would notify their supervisors. Detention Office Defendant John Doe—a short thin male with small brown mustache—became agitated with J. Chavez's numerous requests, angrily shouted at J. Chavez, shook his clinched fist at him, and said he was “sick and tired of him.” Complaint ¶ 20, at 5.
On September 8, 2009, another inmate in the cell summoned for help, as J. Chavez was disoriented. Defendant David Estavillo responded. See Complaint ¶ 22, at 6. He asked J. Chavez several questions about his diabetes. J. Chavez restated that his primary care doctor was Jose Baca, and that he needed Novolin4 and Glucophage. Estavillo argued with J. Chavez and left without assisting him, obtaining medication for him, or providing medical care for him. See Complaint ¶ 23, at 6.
On September 10, 2009, J. Chavez became extremely ill; he was dizzy, had blurred vision, and was trembling. J. Chavez got up from his bunk to summon for help, but blacked out and fell. See Complaint ¶ 25, at 6. When he revived, several detention officers were around him, including John Doe Supervisor. J. Chavez complained of pain to his ankle, shoulder, and back. See Complaint at ¶ 26, 6–7. He was put in a wheel-chair and moved to a “single” cell. Photographs were taken. He was not provided care for his injuries. He was then taken in front of a Magistrate via a video arraignment, where the Magistrate dismissed the charges against him. See Complaint ¶ 28, at 7. After his release, the pain in J. Chavez's ankle and shoulder continued to increase. See Complaint ¶ 31, at 7. When he sought medical attention for these injuries, J. Chavez was told that he had broken a small bone in his ankle and he had torn his rotator cuff. See Complaint ¶ 32, at 7.
J. Chavez filed his Civil Complaint for Damages in the Seventh Judicial District Court, County of Socorro, State of New Mexico, on August 22, 2011. See Doc. 1–1 (“Complaint”). He asserts various causes of action against the Defendants, including: (i) Count I–Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for Failure to Provide Medical Treatment to an Inmate based on an alleged failure to provide medication for sugar diabetes; (ii) Count II–Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for Failure to Provide Medical Treatment to an Inmate based on an alleged failure to provide medical treatment for Chavez' ankle and shoulder injuries; (iii) Count III–New Mexico State Tort Claim for negligence; and (iv) Count IV–Spoliation of Evidence. See Complaint at 9–11. On November 14, 2011, the Defendants filed their Notice of Removal to remove this case to federal court. See Notice of Removal at 1 (Doc. 1).
On February 7, 2012, the Defendants filed their Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. See Doc. 16 (“Motion to Dismiss”). They seek dismissal of all J. Chavez's claims against them. The Defendants first claim that dismissal of J. Chavez's entire Complaint is warranted, because it fails to meet the pleading standards that rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires. See Motion to Dismiss at 1. The Defendants contend that the Court should dismiss the claim against SCDC, because “the SCDC is not a ‘person’ within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ..., and because it is not an entity separate and distinct from Sierra County.” Motion to Dismiss at 1 They claim that the Court should dismiss Counts I and II, the 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims and associated prayers for punitive damages, against “all individual capacity defendants, with prejudice,” because the individuals are entitled to qualified immunity. Motion to Dismiss at 1. The Defendants assert that the Court should dismiss the punitive damage claims based on 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Sierra County and all official capacity Defendants, because “punitive damages are not properly awarded under § 1983 against municipalities and official capacity defendants.” Motion to Dismiss at 2. Dismissal of Counts I and II against all official capacity defendants is appropriate, they argue, because the Defendants are “not necessary parties in their official capacities.” Motion to Dismiss at 2. For the state law claims in Counts III and IV, the Defendants contend that, if the Court dismisses all the federal claims with prejudice, the Court has discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction and, alternatively, that the Court should dismiss all state law claims based on the New Mexico Tort Claims Act, N.M.S.A.1978 §§ 41–4–1 to 30 (“NMTCA”) for failure to allege compliance with N.M.S.A.1978 § 41–4–16, the NMTCA's mandatory notice provision. Motion to Dismiss at 2, 3. They also assert that: (i) dismissal of the spoliation claim is appropriate, because, even if the tort of spoliation occurred, it is not a tort for which New Mexico has waived sovereign immunity under the NMTCA, and (ii) a failure to record is not an element of the tort of spoliation. See Motion to Dismiss at 2, 3. The Defendants assert that dismissal of Counts III and IV against Sierra County is appropriate, because Sierra County is not a “law enforcement officer” under N.M.S.A.1978 § 41–4–12. Motion to Dismiss at 3. They argue that dismissal of state law claims for punitive damages is appropriate, because punitive damages are not properly awarded under NMTCA. See Motion to Dismiss at 3.
On May 3, 2012, J. Chavez filed Plaintiff's Response to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Complaint (Edited Version).5See Doc. 26 (“MTD Response”). He asserts that, if the Complaint fails to meet the pleading standards set out in rule 8, the proper relief is to allow him to amend the pleading, rather than dismissing his claims with prejudice. See MTD Response at 3. He contends, however, that his Complaint meets the rule 8 requirements, because it states the factual basis for the claims, states the legal grounds upon which he is relying to bring the claims, and sufficiently identifies “two ‘classes' of defendants in this case,” institutional defendants and individual defendants, further identifying each individual defendant separately. MTD Response at 4–5. J. Chavez further asserts that actions against the government agency is allowed under a respondeat superior theory under the NMTCA, thus not requiring the plaintiff to name the individual actors to sufficiently state a claim for relief. See MTD Response at 5 (citing Lopez v. Las Cruces Police Department, 2006–NMCA–074, 139 N.M. 730, 137 P.3d 670).
J. Chavez alleges that his Complaint alleges facts, when accepted as true, sufficient to show that the individual Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity, because his allegations show that the Defendants violated his right, as a detainee, to be provided adequate medical care. See MTD Response at 9. He...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nordwall v. PHC-Las Cruces, Inc.
... ... City and Cnty. of Denver, 742 F.Supp.2d at 1217). B. Nordwall cites to ... See Chavez v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs of Sierra Cnty., 899 F.Supp.2d ... ...
- Tanner v. McMurray
- Salazar v. San Juan Cnty. Det. Ctr.
- Gallegos v. Bernalillo Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs