Gaines v. Choctaw County Com'n

• Citation: 242 F.Supp.2d 1153
• Decision Date: 09 January 2003
• Docket Number: No. CIV.A. 02-0198-CB-M.,CIV.A. 02-0198-CB-M.
• Parties: Barbara GAINES and Doris Ofield, Personally and as Administrators of the Estate of Carl Eugene Row, Deceased, Plaintiffs, v. CHOCTAW COUNTY COMMISSION, Donald F. Lolley, Individually and in his Official Capacity as Sheriff of Choctaw County, Alabama, et al. Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Alabama

242 F.Supp.2d 1153

Barbara GAINES and Doris Ofield, Personally and as Administrators of the Estate of Carl Eugene Row, Deceased, Plaintiffs, v. CHOCTAW COUNTY COMMISSION, Donald F. Lolley, Individually and in his Official Capacity as Sheriff of Choctaw County, Alabama, et al. Defendants.

No. CIV.A. 02-0198-CB-M.

United States District Court, S.D. Alabama, Southern Division.

January 9, 2003.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

John A. Bivens, Tuscaloosa, AL, for Plaintiffs.

Kendrick E. Webb, Kelly G. Davidson, Esq., Christina Harris Jackson, Gary Lee Willford, Jr., Webb & Eley, P.C, Montgomery, AL, for Defendants.

ORDER

BUTLER, Chief Judge.

This matter is before the Court on motions to dismiss filed by defendants Choctaw County Commission and Sheriff Donald F. Lolley. (Docs. 2, 4, 14 & 16.) In this action, plaintiffs assert state and federal law claims against both the Sheriff and the County arising from the death of their brother, Carl Euguene Rowe, which plaintiffs allege resulted from the denial of medical treatment to Rowe while he was a pretrial detainee in the Choctaw County jail. The County contends that it cannot be held liable for any state or federal violation arising from a claim of inadequate medical care because Alabama law imposes on the Sheriff, a state officer, the duty to attend to the medical needs of inmates in his custody. The sheriff asserts that the state and federal claims against him are barred by sovereign immunity and by qualified immunity. For the reasons set forth below, the Court finds that some claims are due to be dismissed but other claims against both defendants survive.

I. Procedural Background

Plaintiffs, as administrators of their brother's estate, initially filed this action in the Circuit Court of Choctaw County, Alabama. The original complaint asserted state law claims against the Choctaw County Commission, Sheriff Donald Lolley and various fictitious defendants. After plaintiffs amended their complaint to add claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, defendants removed the case to this Court and filed motions to dismiss. After removal, and while the motions to dismiss were pending, plaintiffs amended the complaint to add more specific factual allegations in support of their claims. Defendants then filed motions to dismiss the second amended complaint.

II. The Complaint

The complaint, as amended, asserts state law causes of action against both defendants for wrongful death (Count One), pain and suffering (Count Two), and negligent "training], counsel[ing]and supervision]" (Count Three) and against the County Commission¹ for breaching its alleged statutory duties to: (1) maintain the jail, (2) provide adequate funding for medical care for inmates, and (3) hire a jail physician (Count Four). Plaintiffs have also asserted a federal law claim against Sheriff Lolley under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violation of the decedent's Fourteenth Amendment rights (Count Five), alleging that the Sheriffs denial of medical care to the decedent, his failure to train his jail employees regarding the care of seriously ill inmates, and his policy regarding dispensing prescription medicine to inmates amounted to deliberate indifference to the decedent's serious medical needs. Finally, plaintiffs have asserted a § 1983 claim against the County Commission (Count Six) alleging that its failure to maintain the jail, to provide adequate funding or to hire a physician amounted to deliberate indifference to the decedent's serious medical needs in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.

These claims are based upon the following allegations of fact.² On August 10, 1999, Sheriff Lolley arrested Carl Eugene Rowe ("the decedent") for the murder of his brother. At the time of his arrest, Rowe was a patient at Thomasville Infirmary where he was being treated for acute renal failure and pneumonia. Sheriff Lolley personally removed Rowe from the hospital over the strenuous objection of Rowe's physician. Rowe was placed in the Choctaw County Jail where his condition deteriorated. He became unable to walk or to feed himself. On visiting days, the family would find Rowe covered in urine feces and bed sores and suffering from a high fever. Eventually, the family paid other inmates to help bathe and feed Rowe. Jailers refused to administer prescription medication because, they informed the family, the Sheriffs policies did not require them to do so.

The family complained to Sheriff Lolley several times over a three-week period about Rowe's deteriorating health. Lolley refused the family's request to readmit Rowe to the hospital. The Sheriff did have Rowe taken to a nearby medical clinic where the treating physician recommended that Rowe be hospitalized, but the Sheriff refused. Finally, the family contacted the Alabama Department of Human Resources. After DHR intervened, the Sheriff again had Rowe taken to a local clinic where an ambulance was summoned to transport him to the hospital.

Rowe was admitted to the hospital, where he was found to be dehydrated and malnourished. Moreover, his illness had become irreversible, and he died a few days later.

III. Issues Presented

Both defendants argue that plaintiffs' claims against them should be dismissed in their entirety. The Choctaw County Commission contends that it has no liability under state law because a county has no authority over the operation of the jail, a duty which falls upon the sheriff, who is considered a state officer. Further, the County argues that it cannot be held liable under § 1983 for deliberate indifference to the decedent's serious medical needs because it had no authority over the medical care of jail inmates.

Sheriff Lolley argues that all claims against him are due to be dismissed on various immunity grounds. First, Lolley contends that state law claims, whether asserted against him in his official or individual capacity, are barred by immunity. As to plaintiffs' § 1983 claims against him, the Sheriff contends that he is entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity with respect to official capacity claims and that he is entitled to qualified immunity as to all individual capacity claims.

Finally, defendants assert two common arguments. Both contend that claims against them for punitive damages are due to be stricken. In addition, both defendants seek to have fictitious parties stricken from the complaint.

IV. Standard of Review

"A motion to dismiss is only granted when the movant demonstrates `beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.'" Harper v. Blockbuster Entertainment Corp., 139 F.3d 1385, 1387 (11th Cir.1998) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S.Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed.2d 80, (1957)). For purposes of a motion to dismiss, the Court must accept all the allegations of the complaint as true and construe the facts asserted in light most favorable to the plaintiff. Partner v. Thomas, 983 F.2d 1024, 1028 (11th Cir. 1993). If it is evident from the face of the complaint that an asserted affirmative defense, such as qualified immunity, bars relief, then the complaint is subject to dismissal, even though a valid claim is otherwise sufficiently stated. Marsh v. Butler, 268 F.3d 1014, 1022 (11th Cir.2001) (en banc).

V. Choctaw County Commission³

A. State Law Claims

1. Negligent Training and Supervision

Plaintiffs' complaint can be interpreted to assert two general theories of County liability for wrongful death—negligence based upon its breach of certain statutory duties and negligence in training and supervision.⁴ The latter claim clearly has no merit because the County is not responsible for training or supervising the Sheriff or his employees. See Lancaster v. Monroe County, 116 F.3d 1419, 1430 (11th Cir.1997) (county has no control over sheriff, deputies or jailers). The Sheriff is considered a state officers, and so are his employees. Therefore, the County has no supervisory authority over them and cannot be held liable for any alleged lack of training or supervision.

2. Breach of Duties Imposed by Statute

Plaintiffs alternatively contend that the County is liable for Rowe's death due to its breach of three duties imposed upon it by Alabama law. First, plaintiffs argue that the County breached the duty to "maintain a jail" prescribed in Ala.Code § 11-14-10 (1975) because it failed to provide audiovisual equipment to monitor inmates and because it failed to provide adequate medical care to its inmates. Second, plaintiffs argue that the County breached its duty to fund medical care for inmates imposed by Ala Code § 14-6-19 (1975) because it failed to provide adequate funding for the medical care of inmates or for staff who could attend to the medical needs of inmates. Finally, plaintiffs assert liability based on the County's failure to appoint a physician, which it has authority to do pursuant to Ala.Code § 14-6-20 (1975). Under Alabama law, violation of a statutory duty may give rise to a cause of action for negligence. Ala. Power Co. v. Dunaway, 502 So.2d 726, 730 (Ala.1987).

To analyze plaintiffs' claims, it is important to understand the relationship between Alabama counties and their sheriffs and the delineation of duties between the two. Under Alabama law, counties have only the powers delegated to them by the legislature. Turquitt v. Jefferson County, 137 F.3d 1285, 1289 (11th Cir.1998). It is the sheriff, not the county, who "has legal custody and charge of the jail ... and all prisoners committed thereto." Ala.Code § 14-6-1 (1975). In matters related to the "supervis[ion][of] inmates and otherwise operating the county jails," Alabama sheriffs are state, not county, officers, and a sheriffs authority is totally independent of the county commission. Id. To summarize the duties of counties versus those of sheriffs "[counties'] responsibilities [with respect to the jail] are clearly enumerated in the statute and relate only to...