Crawford v. Tilley
| Decision Date | 08 June 2020 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 5:18-CV-623-CHB |
| Parties | DAWN CRAWFORD, In her Capacity as Administratrix of the Estate of Marc Crawford, Plaintiff, v. JOHN TILLEY, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Kentucky |
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion Seeking Leave to File Amended Complaint ("Motion to Amend Complaint") [R. 32]; various Motions to Dismiss filed by Defendant Correct Care Solutions [R. 11], Defendants Kristie Proctor, Janice Garth, and Sheridan Thomas [R. 20], and Defendant James Erwin [R. 21]; and Plaintiff's Motions Seeking Reissuance/Amendment of Summonses [R. 41; 42]. Briefing is complete on the various Motions. [R. 33-38, 40] Thus, these matters are ripe for review. For the reasons stated herein, Plaintiff's Motion to Amend Complaint is GRANTED in PART and DENIED in PART; the Defendants' Motions to Dismiss are DENIED as MOOT; and Plaintiff's Motions Seeking Reissuance/Amendment of Summonses are GRANTED.
This matter arises from claims brought by Dawn Crawford ("Plaintiff" or "Dawn"), in her capacity as administratrix of the estate of her former husband, Marc Crawford ("Marc"), who died on June 24, 2017, while in custody at the Kentucky State Reformatory ("KSR"). [R. 32-1 ¶ 10] Dawn Crawford was appointed as administratrix of Marc Crawford's estate on November 22, 2017, by order of the Madison County District Court. [Id.]
On May 25, 2017, Marc Crawford was arrested and taken to the Madison County Detention Center ("MCDC"). [Id. ¶¶ 59, 62] This was not the first time Marc had been detained in MCDC; in September 2016, he was detained and allegedly subjected to abuse from MCDC and its employees. [Id. ¶¶ 53-58] In the 2016 incident, Marc was held in a restraint chair for hours without justification, forcing him to urinate on himself. [Id. ¶ 54] When Marc attempted to obtain video footage or other records of the incident from MCDC, he was told that he should leave or he would be arrested for inquiring about the records. [Id. ¶ 56] Marc filed an open records request to which MCDC failed to respond. [Id. ¶ 57] The Kentucky Attorney General found that MCDC violated Kentucky's Open Records Act by ignoring Marc's request. [Id. ¶ 58]
Upon Marc's 2017 arrest, his wife Dawn informed the arresting officers that Marc was ill and had just been released from the hospital with complications arising from lung cancer (including a stint placed in his kidney). [Id. ¶¶ 1, 60] Per Plaintiff, Marc's leg was also swelling and cool to the touch, and Dawn informed the officers that she had been about to take Marc back to the hospital. [Id.] Dawn called 911 to make sure Marc would receive care for his leg, but the arresting officers informed her that they would take Marc to the hospital before taking him to jail, so Dawn cancelled her 911 call. [Id. ¶ 61] However, the arresting officers did not take Marc to the hospital, but instead took him to MCDC. [Id. ¶ 62] At MCDC, Marc was kept in isolation and did not receive medical care for his leg, which was developing a blood clot, or his other medical conditions. [Id. ¶¶ 63-64] According to the Amended Complaint, MCDC staff subjected Marc to brutal treatment, including several assaults. [Id. ¶¶ 64-77] MCDC medical staff also denied Marc his prescribed medications, placed him on inappropriate psychoactivemedications, would not allow him to have his previously scheduled oncology appointments for his cancer treatment, and then falsified medication records to cover up their actions. [Id.]
On May 31, 2017, Marc was transferred to KSR. [Id. ¶ 78] Marc's treatment at KSR is the basis for the three motions to dismiss before the Court. Defendant Correct Care Solutions, LLC ("CCS") is a contracted healthcare provider for inmates at KSR. [Id. ¶ 20] Plaintiff states that Defendants Proctor, Garth, and Thomas were all medical staff of KSR and/or Correct Care Solutions. [Id. ¶¶ 21] Defendant James Erwin was the acting Commissioner of the Kentucky Department of Corrections at the time, and made the decision to accept Marc to KSR. [Id. ¶¶ 12, 97]
KSR medical staff did not refer Marc to be treated by an oncologist until June 20, 2017 (three weeks after Marc's arrival at KSR), and Defendant Garth scheduled the appointment for July 5. [Id. ¶ 81] Plaintiff asserts that this delay occurred because KSR either had no policy requiring oncology consults and referrals for inmates with cancer, or that Defendant Garth ignored this policy. [Id. ¶ 88] Plaintiff claims that the medical staff at KSR, including Defendants CCS, Proctor, Garth, and Thomas, refused to give Marc his prescribed narcotic medication and provided inadequate dosages of pain medication. [Id. ¶ 80] She also claims that the same Defendants refused to provide Marc chemotherapy as prescribed by his oncologist prior to incarceration. [Id. ¶ 79]
Two days after Marc's transfer to KSR, Defendant Thomas examined him. [Id. ¶ 86] During this examination Marc complained about the pain in his leg, and medical records showed that he had an identified blood clot in his leg at the time. [Id.] Nevertheless, Thomas failed to assess his leg or review these records. [Id.] Defendant Proctor signed off on Marc's medical charts but did not administer several of the medications that were prescribed, including Tylenolwith codeine, Norco, Zosyn, Colace, and Coumadin (a blood thinner). [Id. ¶ 87] Defendant Garth, one of Marc's medical providers at the time, noticed the blood clot on June 20, 2017 (four days before Marc's death). [Id. ¶ 89] However, she did not take any measures to follow up on the clot. [Id.] Marc died four days later [Id. ¶ 83] and had 3 liters of fluid in his lungs, which may have been caused by the blood clot in his leg breaking and flowing into his heart and lungs. [Id. ¶¶ 90, 94] In fact, Marc was prescribed Ipratropium to relax the muscles around his airways to allow him to breathe. [Id. ¶ 91] However, despite this prescription, Plaintiff claims no one at KSR or CCS ever administered Ipratropium to Marc. [Id. ¶ 92] As a result, no one ever checked the condition of Marc's lungs despite his elevated heart rate and self-reported symptoms, or requests from his pre-incarceration physician, attorney, and family members. [Id. ¶ 93, 95] No one from KSR or CCS informed Dawn Crawford that her husband had died until two days after his death. [Id. ¶ 84]
On November 26, 2018, Plaintiff filed her Complaint through then-counsel Michael Barnett, alleging claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and other state law claims. [R. 1] Plaintiff took no action regarding her case for nine months until the Court ordered her to show cause for why she had not effected service of process. [R. 4 (dated August 12, 2019)] In his response to the Court's show cause order, counsel Barnett stated that he had no intention of litigating the case and only agreed to file it for Plaintiff because the statute of limitations was approaching. [R. 5 (dated August 26, 2019)] Barnett also requested to withdraw as counsel. [R. 6] The Court denied his request and admonished counsel for filing an action that he had no intention of advocating. [R. 7] The Court also ordered Plaintiff to serve the Defendants in this case within forty-five days of the order. [Id. p. 3] On October 11, 2019, Plaintiff's counsel filed notice that he had complied with the Court's order. [R. 10] However, the notice did not reflect service ofprocess since it was missing an affidavit as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(l) (). [R. 14] In response to the Court's order, Plaintiff, through counsel, filed a second notice on November 12, 2019. [R. 18; 19]
Meanwhile, on October 23, 2019, Defendant CCS filed a motion to dismiss. [R. 11] Defendants Proctor, Garth, and Thomas filed a motion to dismiss on November 25, 2019. [R. 20] Finally, on January 3, 2020, Defendant Erwin, in his individual capacity, filed a motion to dismiss. [R. 21] Plaintiff did not timely respond to any of the motions to dismiss. On February 12, 2020, Plaintiff secured new counsel who filed a motion seeking a thirty-day extension to respond to the three motions to dismiss. [R. 24] In its discretion, the Court granted this request. [R. 30]
Plaintiff then filed her Motion to Amend Complaint [R. 32], and responded to Defendants' Motions to Dismiss. [R. 33] Plaintiff's Amended Complaint asserts the same state law claims for wrongful death [Id. ¶¶ 102-105] and negligence [Id. ¶¶ 133-138] as her original Complaint. Like her first Complaint, Plaintiff also brings claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for various violations under the Eighth Amendment. Compare, [R. 1 ¶¶ 53-63], with [R. 32-1 ¶¶ 106-132]. Her Amended Complaint clarifies her particular claims against each Defendant under the Eighth Amendment and adds additional facts supporting her claims. Defendants oppose Plaintiff's Motion to Amend Complaint. [R. 35; 37; 38]
A party may amend its complaint once as a matter of course within twenty-one days after serving it, or within twenty-one days after service of a responsive pleading or motion under Rule12(b), (e), or (f). Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1). Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). The goal of the rule is that "cases should be tried on their merits rather than the technicalities of pleadings." Moore v. City of Paducah, 790 F.2d 557, 559 (6th Cir. 1968); see also Burkeen v. A.R.E. Accessories, LLC, 758 F. App'x 412, 416 (6th Cir. 2018) (citing Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962)). Consequently,...
To continue reading
Request your trial