Chennault v. Mitchell

Decision Date07 February 2013
Docket NumberCivil Action No. 3:12–CV–514.
Citation923 F.Supp.2d 765
CourtU.S. District Court — Eastern District of Virginia
PartiesChristina CHENNAULT, as guardian and personal representative for Lajune S. Brunson, Incapacitated, Plaintiff, v. Michelle B. MITCHELL, et al., Defendants.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

James Broome Thorsen, Marchant Thorsen Honey Baldwin & Meyer LLP, Richmond, VA, for Plaintiff.

Alexander Francuzenko, Lee Brinson Warren, Cook Craig & Francuzenko PLLC, Fairfax, VA, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

JAMES R. SPENCER, District Judge.

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff Christina Chennault's Objections (ECF No. 11) to the Report and Recommendation (“R & R”) of Magistrate Judge Novak (ECF No. 9). Chennault filed suit, as guardian and personal representative for Lajune S. Brunson, against Michelle B. Mitchell, former Sheriff of the City of Richmond; Gary L. Sink, a former Captain in the Sheriffs Department for the City of Richmond; and Andrew A. Barnhouse, a former Sergeant in the Sheriff's Department for the City of Richmond (collectively Defendants). The suit, filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleges the Defendants violated Branson's Fourteenth Amendment rights when she was detained in the Richmond City Jail Annex (“Jail Annex”). Plaintiff alleges the Defendants demonstrated deliberate indifference to Brunson's medical needs, resulting in Brunson incurring permanent brain damage from an attempted suicide. Judge Novak recommended the Court dismiss the complaint with prejudice. For the reasons stated below, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiffs objections and ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation GRANTING Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and DISMISSING the action WITH PREJUDICE.

BACKGROUND

The facts as stated in the complaint show that, on Wednesday, July 21, 2004, police officers reported to Brunson's residence, discovered her holding a crack pipe, instructed her to put the pipe down, and asked if she had any drugs on her person. Compl. ¶¶ 10–11. Brunson took a piece of rock cocaine from her mouth and then began chewing and swallowing another piece of rock cocaine. Compl. ¶ 11. Brunson was then taken into police custody and transported to the Jail Annex where she acted violently toward the deputies. Compl. ¶¶ 12, 18. After her arrival, deputies did not ask the highly intoxicated Brunson the required triage questions regarding her mental and physical health, nor did medical staff screen Brunson for potential suicide risk. See Compl. ¶¶ 13, 16.

After Brunson's “unprovoked attack” upon one deputy, several deputies forcibly removed Brunson from the room, forced her to the floor, and handcuffed her. Compl. ¶ 19. Brunson was then escorted to a holding cell where she continued to resist and was combative. Compl. ¶ 20. In the holding cell, two deputies ordered Brunson to lie face down on the bunk so they could remove the handcuffs; she refused and resisted, and the deputies sprayed Brunson with a one second burst of Oleoresin Capsicum (“O.C.”) spray in an attempt to make her comply with orders. Compl. ¶¶ 21, 23. At no time thereafter, was Brunson decontaminated pursuant to the Jail's Use of Force Policy. Compl. ¶ 23.

Around 12:28 p.m., an inmate trustee notified officers that Brunson was attempting to hang herself and at least six jail personnel, including Defendants Sink and Barnhouse, ran to the cell. Compl. ¶¶ 25–26. Brunson had tied her neck to the bars with her shirt and a deputy cut the shirt from the bars. Compl. ¶ 26. When the deputy cut the shirt, Brunson's body and neck were not supported by any jail personnel and her head struck the horizontal bars, adding to her injuries. Compl. ¶ 26. Brunson was removed from the cell and Sink and another deputy performed rescue breathing until EMS arrived. Compl. ¶¶ 27–28. As a result of the attempted suicide, Brunson remained at VCU–MCV hospital for approximately five months and was diagnosed with severe traumatic brain damage. Compl. ¶ 30. Since her suicide attempt, “Brunson cannot communicate, exhibits no understanding of her surroundings and circumstances, and is currently confined to a nursing home bed in a permanent, ‘persistent vegetative state.’ Compl. ¶ 30.

Plaintiff claims Defendants Sink and Barnhouse violated Brunson's rights because they knew, or should have known Brunson's intoxicated medical condition; no medical exam was conducted; no one asked the required five triage questions according to the Jail's Mental Health/Suicide Prevent Policy; no protective measures were taken to ensure Brunsons' safety, despite her intoxication; deputies' use of O.C. spray and failure to administer protective measures or medical attention after placing her in a holding cell; and deputies failed to support Brunson's body and/or neck after cutting the shirt around Brunson's neck. Compl. ¶¶ 35–44. Plaintiff further claims that as a result of jail personnel's deliberate indifference to Brunson's medical needs, she attempted to commit suicide causing her to suffer severe traumatic brain damage. Compl. ¶ 45.

Plaintiff claims Defendant Mitchell violated Brunson's rights as the supervisor of the jail personnel, alleging there was an official policy or custom of placing combative or intoxicated detainees in a holding cell without taking any precautions or following the Mental Health/Suicide Prevent Policy. Compl. ¶ 50. Plaintiff also alleges Mitchell violated Brunson's rights by failing to properly train jail personnel to “respond adequately to the readily foreseeable medical needs of combative and/or intoxicated detainees.” Compl. ¶ 54.

Plaintiff's complaint is the second complaint alleging constitutional violations based on these facts. In 2006 Brunson brought suit against Sheriff C.T. Woody alleging a violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and a pendent state law cause of action. Sheriff Woody filed, and the Court granted, a motion to dismiss Brunson's claims on the grounds that Sheriff Woody was not at the Jail Annex on July 21, 2004 and did not become Sheriff for the City of Richmond until nearly eighteen months later. Brunson v. Woody, No. 3:06cv570 (E.D.Va. Oct. 31, 2006).

Defendants collectively moved to dismiss this action with prejudice. This Court referred the Motion to Dismiss to Magistrate Judge Novak for a report and recommendation, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (ECF No. 8). Judge Novak recommended the Court dismiss the complaint with prejudice. Judge Novak found that Defendants Sink and Barnhouse were not deliberately indifferent to Branson's suicide risk because violation of the jail policies alone does not provide a cause of action under § 1983 and they were not deliberately indifferent to Brunson's medical needs because [n]one of the allegations in the complaint establish facts sufficient to show that either Defendant Sink or Defendant Barnhouse had knowledge of, or even any particular reason to suspect,that Brunson presented [ ] a substantial suicide risk.” R & R 781, 783. Judge Novak further found Sink and Barnhouse were not deliberately indifferent to Brunson's medical needs in using O.C. spray and failing to decontaminate afterwards because the complaint fails to allege use of O.C. spray was unnecessary or excessive, did not allege an adverse reaction, and defendants had no knowledge that O.C. spray aggravated suicidal ideations. R & R 783–84. Finally, Judge Novak found that Sink and Barnhouse were not deliberately indifferent to Brunson's medical needs after her attempted suicide because nothing in the complaint alleges the defendants acted with any purpose other than to save Brunson's life and, even if they were deliberately indifferent, they are entitled to qualified immunity because no guidance from any court says the defendants should have supported Brunson's head and neck. R & R 784–86.

With regard to Defendant Mitchell, Judge Novak recommended dismissal of the failure to train claim as duplicative of the official policy or custom claim. R & R 786. Judge Novak further recommended dismissal of the official policy or custom claim because no constitutional violation was committed by Mitchell's employees and the complaint failed to plead a pattern of constitutional violations or a causal connection between the alleged policy and Brunson's suicide attempt. R & R 786–88.

Finally Judge Novak recommended dismissal with prejudice because a case alleging the same facts was filed in 2006 and dismissed without prejudice. R & R 788 n. 6. Judge Novak therefore found this was Plaintiff's second, unsuccessful attempt at pleading a plausible claim.” R & R 788 n. 6. Plaintiff timely filed objections to the R & R, specifically to the recommendation of dismissal with prejudice and factual findings Plaintiff argues Judge Novak made in error. The objections have been fully briefed and the parties have not requested a hearing on this matter; therefore, the objections are ripe for decision. See E.D. Va. Loc. Civ. R. 7(J).

STANDARD OF REVIEW

A district court reviews any portion of a Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation that has been properly objected to de novo.Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3); see also28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In order to properly object to the report and recommendation, a party must object “with sufficient specificity so as reasonably to alert the district court of the true ground for the objection.” United States v. Midgette, 478 F.3d 616, 622 (4th Cir.2007).

ANALYSIS
1. OBJECTION TO RECOMMENDATION OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE

Plaintiffs first objection argues it was error to find the complaint the second unsuccessful attempt at pleading a plausible claim. In 2006, the Court dismissed, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), claims based on the same factual situation presented above. The Court's 2006 dismissal was without prejudice, allowing the Plaintiff to file the instant complaint alleging constitutional violations based on the same conduct. In the nearly six years between actions, Plaintiff was unable to develop and plead facts sufficient to state a...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 cases
  • Reid v. Newton
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Virginia
    • 14 Abril 2014
    ...allege that the defendant had actual knowledge of a pretrial detainee's serious medical condition. Accord Chennault v. Mitchell, 923 F. Supp. 2d 765, 779 (E.D. Va. 2012), adopted by 923 F. Supp. 2d 765 (E.D. Va. 2013). Whether a complaint makes plausible allegations is a "context-specific t......
  • Jones v. Harrison
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of North Carolina
    • 21 Julio 2014
    ...of constitutional rights, and (3) this policy or custom caused the constitutional injury complained of." Chennault v. Mitchell, 923 F. Supp. 2d 765, 786 (E.D. Va. 2013): see City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378, 388-92 (1989); Smith v. Atkins, 777 F. Supp. 2d 955, 966-67 (E.D.N.C. 2011). ......
  • Cox v. Mag Mut. Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Virginia
    • 9 Abril 2015
    ...motion. Reid v. Newton, No. 3:13-CV-572, 2014 WL 1493569, at *6 (E.D. Va. Apr. 14, 2014) (citations omitted); Chennault v. Mitchell, 923 F. Supp. 2d 765, 774 (E.D. Va. 2013) ("Plaintiff's argument that formal discovery would allow her the opportunity to develop facts is also unpersuasive . ......
  • Haggwood v. Magill
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of South Carolina
    • 27 Junio 2016
    ...inferences from those allegations state facially plausible claims for relief against each Defendant. See, e.g., Chennault v. Mitchell, 923 F. Supp. 2d 765 (E.D. Va. 2013) (supervisory official may be held liable for a policy or custom that caused a constitutional injury) (citing City of Can......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Part two: case summaries by major topic.
    • United States
    • Detention and Corrections Caselaw Quarterly No. 60, June 2014
    • 1 Junio 2014
    ...beating continued. (Jefferson County Jail, Birmingham, Alabama) U.S. District Court SUICIDE ATTEMPT USE OF FORCE Chennault v. Mitchell, 923 F.Supp.2d 765 (E.D.Va. 2013). The guardian for an incapacitated former pretrial detainee filed [section] 1983 action against a former sheriff and forme......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT