Coley v. Lucas Cnty.
| Decision Date | 23 January 2014 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 3:09-CV-00008 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Ohio |
| Parties | DENISE M. COLEY, ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF CARLTON L. BENTON, et. al., Plaintiffs, v. LUCAS COUNTY, OHIO, et.al, Defendants. |
AMENDED
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDERIn 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 John E. Gray (Gray) (Docket No. 92), a Memorandum in Support (Docket No. 93), Omnibus Brief in Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings filed by all Plaintiffs (Docket No. 101) and Defendant Gray's Reply Memorandum in Support of the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Docket No. 108). The Magistrate previously granted, in part, and denied, in part, Defendant Gray's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings [and/or Motion to Dismiss]. The previously filed Memorandum Decision and Order is amended as to Defendant Gray's claim under 42 U. S. C. § 1985.
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).
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 beingremoved 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"1 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).
A brief summary of the procedural history is provided to explain the interrelationship between the criminal and civil cases.
On April 14, 2009, Defendant Gray was indicted in this Court as follows:
On December 3, 2010, the jury found Defendant Gray guilty of Counts 2, 4 and 5. Defendant Gray was acquitted on Counts 1 and 9 (Case No. 3:09 CR 182, Docket No. 256). On January 31,2011, United States District Court Judge David A. Katz committed Defendant Gray to the Bureau of Prisons for a period of 36 months on Counts two, four and five, to run concurrently (Case No. 09 CR 00182, Docket No. 284).
The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction and sentence as to Defendant John Gray on September 27, 2012 and the United States Supreme Court denied the petition for writ of certiorari on January 23, 2013 (Docket Nos. 314 & 317).
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 again pending the jury verdict (Docket No. 27). The stay was continued pending resolution of Defendant 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 (Docket Nos. 46 & 48).
During the pendency of the petition for writ of certiorari, Defendant Gray timely filed anAnswer to Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint (Docket No. 56). With leave of Court, Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint against all Defendants on April 29, 2013 (Docket No. 70) and Defendant Gray timely filed an Answer (Docket No. 76). On August 16, 2013, Defendant Gray filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings [and/or Motion to Dismiss] (Docket No. 92). Plaintiffs filed an Omnibus Brief in Opposition to all Motions for Judgment on the Pleadings (Docket No. 101) and Defendant Gray filed a Reply to the Response (Docket No. 108).
In the Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs assert the following claims against Defendant Gray in his official and individual capacities:
In addition to his Memorandum in Support, Defendant Gray joined in and incorporated by reference the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings filed by Defendant McBroom3 (Docket No. 80). In the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings/and or to Dismiss, Defendant Gray asserts immunity from suit under doctrines of qualified immunity and immunity under OHIO REV. CODE § 2744.01 et. seq. Accordingly, he seeks dismissal of all claims against him pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 12(c) and/or FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6).
Defendant Gray argues additionally that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law for these reasons:
FED.R.CIV.P. 12(c) provides that "[a]fter the pleadings are closed—but early enough not todelay 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, Inc., 249 F.3d 509, 511-512 (6th Cir.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...
To continue reading
Request your trial