Coley v. Lucas Cnty., Case No. 3:09-CV-00008

Decision Date23 January 2014
Docket NumberCase No. 3:09-CV-00008
CourtUnited States District Courts. 6th Circuit. United States District Court of Northern District of Ohio
PartiesDENISE M. COLEY, ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF CARLTON L. BENTON, et. al., Plaintiffs, v. LUCAS COUNTY, OHIO, et.al, Defendants.
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER
I. INTRODUCTION.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U. S. C. § 636(c) and FED. R. CIV. P. 73, the parties in this case have consented to have the undersigned Magistrate Judge conduct any and all proceedings in the case (Docket No. 13). Pending is a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and/or Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendant Jay M. Schmeltz (Schmeltz) (Docket No. 87); the Omnibus Brief in Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings filed by all Plaintiffs (Docket No. 101); and Defendant Schmeltz's Reply in Support of Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and/or Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 105). For the reasons that follow, Defendant Schmeltz's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and/or Motion to Dismiss is granted in part and denied in part.

II. THE PARTIES.

Plaintiff, Denise M. Coley (Coley), a resident of Toledo, Lucas County, Ohio, is the mother of the late Carlton Lenard Benton and the administrator of Mr. Benton's estate (Docket No. 70, ¶ 1)

Plaintiff DeCarlos Benton, a resident of Portsmouth, Virginia, is the decedent's father (Docket No. 70, ¶ 2).

Plaintiff Carla Benton, a resident of Toledo, Lucas County, Ohio, is the decedent's sister (Docket No. 70, ¶ 4 ).

Plaintiff Maliki Larmond, a resident of Camden, New Jersey, is the decedent's son (Docket No. 70, ¶ 3).

Defendant Lucas County, Ohio, has its county seat in Toledo, Ohio, and the Board of Commissioners, a three-member panel of elected officials, holds the administrative power for the county.

Defendant Lucas County Sheriff's Office is a branch of Lucas County, Ohio government responsible for law enforcement and maintaining full police jurisdiction in the municipalities, villages and townships within Lucas County, Ohio (Docket No. 70, ¶ 5; www.co.lucas.oh.us).

At all times relevant to these proceedings, Defendant James A. Telb, a resident of Maumee, Ohio, was the chief law enforcement officer in the Lucas County Sheriff's Department. Defendants John E. Gray, Robert M. McBroom and Jay M. Schmeltz, residents of Lucas County, Ohio, were employees of the Lucas County Sheriff's Office (Docket No. 70, ¶ 6).

III. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The underlying issues arise from an incident at the Lucas County Jail on May 30, 2004:

Carlton Benton had been returned from the intensive care unit at St. Vincent Hospital to a second floor medical unit at the jail. He struggled with authority upon being removed from the hospital unit and again at the jail in the second floor medical unit. The jury obviously determined that Defendant Gray applied a "sleeper hold" to Mr. Benton during the course of attempting to remove restraints. That attempt was by not only Defendant Gray, but several other sheriff's deputies. Mr. Benton was rendered unconscious and the jury found that Defendant Gray left the medical unit without informing anyone of that condition or of the fact that Defendant Gray had used a "sleeper hold" on Mr. Benton. Benton was subsequently found unconscious in the medical cell; although paramedics were able to restore his pulse, he never regained consciousness and died on June 2, 2004 at the hospital.

United States v. Gray, et. al., 2011 WL 198006, *1 (N.D. Ohio,2011) (unreported).

IV. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND.

A brief summary of the procedural history is required to explain the interrelationship between the criminal and civil cases.

A. THE CRIMINAL CASE

On April 14, 2009, Defendant Schmeltz was indicted as follows:

Count 3 DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS UNDER COLOR OF LAW
While acting under color of law, Defendant Schmeltz struck and assaulted the detainee resulting in bodily injury.
Count 6 FALSIFICATION OF A DOCUMENT
Defendant Schmeltz knowingly falsified a document, specifically an official correction officer report in which he omitted any mention of John E. Gray's use of the sleeper hold on the detainee.
Count 7 FALSIFICATION OF A DOCUMENT
Defendant Schmeltz omitted from the official report, his assault of the detainee in the jail's booking area.
Count 11 FALSE STATEMENT
Defendant Schmeltz knowingly made false statements to a Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) agent.

(Case No. 3:09 CR 182-DAK-2, Docket No. 2).

A jury verdict as to Defendant Schmeltz was entered on December 3, 2010, and Defendant Schmeltz was found guilty of Count 6. He was acquitted on Counts 3, 7 and 11 (Case No. 3:09 CR 182-DAK-2, Docket No. 283).

The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's conviction as to Defendant Schmeltz on January 24, 2012 (Case No. 3:09 CR 182-DAK-2, Docket No. 310). Defendant Schmeltz did not seek review in the United States Supreme Court.

B. THE CIVIL CASE.

Before the criminal case was filed, Plaintiffs filed a Complaint on December 9, 2008, in which they asserted claims pursuant to 42 U. S. C. § 1983 against Defendant Lucas County, Ohio (Docket No. 1). The case was removed to this district court and after the indictment was filed, Plaintiffs amended the Complaint, adding the Lucas County Sheriff's Office, James A. Telb, John E. Gray, Jay M. Schmeltz and Robert M. McBroom as parties and amending the causes of action (Docket Nos. 2 & 21).

On June 1, 2009, the Magistrate Judge ordered that all further proceedings in this civil case be stayed and reopened only for good cause (Docket No. 16). On October 7, 2009, the Magistrate Judge reopened the case and granted Plaintiffs leave to amend the Complaint (Docket Nos. 17, 19 & 20). Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint on December 4, 2009 (Docket No. 21) and on March 10, 2010, the Magistrate Judge ordered that the case be stayed pending the jury verdict (Docket No. 27). The stay was continued pending resolution of co-Defendant John Gray's direct appeal in the criminal case (Docket Nos. 43 & 44). The stay was lifted and the case reopened after the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction and sentence of co-Defendant Gray(Docket Nos. 46 & 48).

Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint against all Defendants on April 29, 2013 (Docket No. 70) and Defendant Schmeltz timely filed an Answer (Docket No. 74). On August 16, 2013, Defendant Schmeltz filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and/or Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 87). Plaintiffs filed an Omnibus Brief in Opposition to all Motions for Judgment on the Pleadings (Docket No. 101) and Defendant Schmeltz filed a Reply on October 21, 2013 (Docket No. 105).

V. PLAINTIFFS' CLAIMS AGAINST DEFENDANT SCHMELTZ.

Plaintiffs assert the following claims against Defendant Schmeltz in both his official and individual capacities:

(1) Conspiracy under 42 U.S. C. § 1985.
(2) Conspiracy, under 42 U. S. C § 1983, and violations of the Fourth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
(3) Wrongful death.
(4) Excessive force.
(5) Failure to provide medical treatment.
(6) Negligence, recklessness and bad faith.
(7) Assault and battery.
(8) Intentional affliction of emotional distress.
(9) Loss of consortium.
(10) Conspiracy under state law.
(11) Aiding and abetting.
(12) Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) under federal and state laws.
VI. DEFENDANT SCHMELTZ'S POSITION.

In addition to his Memorandum in Support, Defendant Schmeltz joined in and incorporated by reference the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings filed by Defendant McBroom1 (Docket No.80). Pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 12(c) and/or FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6), Defendant Schmeltz moves the Court to dismiss all claims against him for reasons that:

(1) He is entitled to qualified immunity because Plaintiffs cannot demonstrate that he violated a clearly established constitutional right.
(2) In order to show that he violated a clearly established constitutional right which a reasonable person would have known, Plaintiffs must show that his conduct shocked the conscience. Plaintiffs have failed to assert that his conduct shocked the conscience.
(3) Because every malevolent touch by a prison guard does not give rise to a federal cause of action and because Plaintiffs have not pleaded that Defendant Schmeltz acted sadistically, Plaintiffs cannot show that his conduct shocked the conscience.
(4) Plaintiffs' remaining claims should be dismissed for reasons that they fail as a matter of law and because the doctrine of immunity applies.
(5) Plaintiffs' civil conspiracy claim under Ohio law is barred by the intracorporate conspiracy doctrine.
(6) Ohio law does not recognize the tort of aiding and abetting.
(7) Damages for personal injury are not recoverable under state or federal Racketeering Influence and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO).
(8) Plaintiffs have not alleged a predicate offense thus barring their state and federal RICO claims.
VII. LEGAL STANDARD OF REVIEW.

FED.R.CIV.P. 12(c) provides that "[a]fter the pleadings are closed—but early enough not to delay trial—a party may move for judgment on the pleadings." Cole v. EV Properties, L.P., 2013 WL 1633649, *1 (N.D.Ohio, 2013). The standard for evaluating a motion for judgment on the pleadings is the same as that applicable to a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. Id. (citing Ziegler v. IBP Hog Market, Incorporated, 249 F.3d 509, 511-512 (6thCir.2001)). The Sixth Circuit stated the standard for reviewing such a motion to dismiss in Association of Cleveland Fire Fighters v. Cleveland, 502 F.3d 545 (6th Cir.2007) as follows:

The Supreme Court has recently clarified the law with respect to what a plaintiff must plead in order to survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. Id. (citing Bell Atlantic Corporation v. Twombly, 127 S.Ct. 1955 (2007)). The Court stated that "a plaintiff's obligation to provide the grounds of his entitlement to relief requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the
...

To continue reading

Request your trial

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