Hammonds v. Montgomery Children's Specialty Ctr., LLC
| Decision Date | 29 March 2022 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:21cv448-MHT |
| Parties | Frankie HAMMONDS, Plaintiff, v. MONTGOMERY CHILDREN'S SPECIALTY CENTER, LLC, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Alabama |
James Michael Comer, Patterson Comer Law Firm, Northport, AL, for Plaintiff.
Dennis Oscar Vann, Jr., Lea Richmond, IV, Thomas Lee Oliver, II, Carr Allison, Birmingham, AL, for Defendant.
Plaintiff Frankie Hammonds, an individual with paraplegia and a traumatic brain injury, brought this lawsuit in state court, alleging that defendant Montgomery Children's Specialty Center, LLC ("MCSC") failed to protect him from abuse and neglect at the hands of its staff and failed to report his complaints of mistreatment to the Alabama Department of Human Resources as required by Alabama Department of Mental Health regulations. Hammonds brings the following five federal claims against MCSC: discrimination under § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794 (); harassment under § 504 and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. (count three); retaliation under the Fair Housing Act (FHA), 42 U.S.C. § 3601 et seq. (count five); discrimination under the ADA (count six); and retaliation under § 504 and the ADA (count nine).1 He also brings four state claims for the following: negligence or wantonness (count two); negligent or wanton hiring, retention, training, or supervision (count four); felonious injury (count seven); and menacing (count eight). MCSC removed this lawsuit to this federal court under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441 and 1446. This court has removal jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 (federal question), 1332 (diversity), and 1367 (supplemental).
This case is before the court on MCSC's partial motion to dismiss seven of the nine counts in the complaint for failure to state a claim, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). For the reasons that follow, the motion will be granted, although Hammonds will be given an opportunity to move for leave to file an amended complaint if he so chooses.
To survive a defendant's Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, a complaint need not plead "detailed factual allegations," Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 545, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007), but it must plead "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face," id. at 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955. "A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009). "The issue is not whether a plaintiff will ultimately prevail but whether the claimant is entitled to offer evidence to support the claims." Scheuer v. Rhodes , 416 U.S. 232, 236, 94 S.Ct. 1683, 40 L.Ed.2d 90 (1974). In considering a defendant's motion to dismiss, the court accepts the plaintiff's factual allegations as true, see Hishon v. King & Spalding , 467 U.S. 69, 73, 104 S.Ct. 2229, 81 L.Ed.2d 59 (1984), and construes the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, see Duke v. Cleland , 5 F.3d 1399, 1402 (11th Cir. 1993). However, the court need not accept a plaintiff's conclusory allegations or "formulaic recitation[s] of the elements of a cause of action." Iqbal , 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937 (quoting Twombly , 550 U.S. at 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955 ).
The allegations of the complaint, taken in the light most favorable to Hammonds, establish the following facts.
As a result of a car accident in February 2017, when he was still a minor, Hammonds suffers a traumatic brain injury, spinal cord damage, and paraplegia.2 He requires a wheelchair and a catheter and needs to be turned every two hours to prevent decubitus ulcers. MCSC operates a residential facility that provides institutional care to children with mental and physical disabilities. It receives federal funding, such as Medicaid.
Around June 2018, Hammonds was "involuntarily committed to the care and custody of the [Alabama] Department of Mental Health," Compl. (Doc. 1-1) ¶ 71, and the Alabama Department of Human Resources then placed him in the care of MCSC, see id. ¶¶ 11-12. He alleges in his complaint that, during his time as a resident at MCSC, the facility was not properly staffed, the staff the facility did have was not properly trained, and the staff subjected him to neglect, verbal abuse, and a hostile environment.
He alleges, more specifically, that MCSC staff was not trained in the proper operation of his wheelchair and did not properly apply his left arm brace; that the staff failed to schedule regular therapy for him, failed to feed him properly, and sent him to school with unwashed hair; and that the staff did not turn him every two hours as needed to prevent decubitus ulcers. He further alleges that his personal items were stolen and that he did not receive his monthly allotment of federal funds; that the staff failed to give him sleeping medications at 8:00 p.m. as ordered, often causing him to arrive late to school; and that his lateness was exacerbated because he was not cathed by MCSC staff before school, with the result that a school nurse needed to install a catheter upon his arrival.
Hammonds further alleges that, when he complained to MCSC management about neglect and mistreatment of both himself and other minor residents of the facility, MCSC staff retaliated against him with increased abuse, harassment, and neglect; that MCSC failed to report his complaints to the Department of Human Resources, in violation of a policy of the Alabama Department of Mental Health; and that, ultimately, MCSC either evicted him from its facility or treated him so harshly that he had no choice but to leave to protect his own safety.
In December 2019, according to Hammonds, he was admitted to Children's Hospital in Birmingham with a primary diagnosis of a stage IV decubitus ulcer of ischial area, as well as mild, chronic malnutrition; removal of the dead tissue around the ulcer required two surgeries; and he was discharged from the hospital about one month after his admission.
Hammonds brings claims of harassment (count three), discrimination (count six), and retaliation (count nine) under Title III of the ADA, which applies to "place[s] of public accommodation," 42 U.S.C. § 12182. MCSC responds that Hammonds has pleaded only monetary damages, that such damages are unavailable under Title III, and that his ADA claims must therefore be dismissed.
42 U.S.C. § 12188 provides the available remedies for Title III claims of discrimination and harassment. 42 U.S.C. § 12203(c) adds that § 12188 provides the available remedies for claims of retaliation with respect to Title III. See Shotz v. City of Plantation, Fla. , 344 F.3d 1161, 1169 (11th Cir. 2003) (); G. v. Fay School , 931 F.3d 1, 10-11 (1st Cir. 2019) (same). In Kennedy v. Floridian Hotel, Inc. , 998 F.3d 1221 (11th Cir. 2021), the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals stated that "injunctive relief ... is the only form of relief available to plaintiffs suing under Title III of the ADA." Id. at 1230 (citing 42 U.S.C. § 12188(a)(1) ). Hammonds does not explain why the Eleventh Circuit's interpretation of Title III does not foreclose his claims for damages.
Instead, Hammonds contends that his request for "[a]ll other such further [relief] in any way available at law or in equity," Compl. (Doc. 1-1) ¶ 113, includes a request for injunctive relief, which is available under Title III. However, he has not sufficiently alleged Article III standing to seek injunctive relief on these claims. Because injunctive relief is forward-looking, Article III standing requires a plaintiff to allege (1) "that he is likely to suffer future injury"; (2) "that he is likely to suffer such injury at the hands of the defendant"; and (3) "that the relief the plaintiff seeks will likely prevent such injury from occurring." Cone Corp. v. Fla. Dep't of Transp. , 921 F.2d 1190, 1203-04 (11th Cir. 1991). "To show a real and immediate threat of future discrimination in the context of an ADA claim, a plaintiff must have ‘attempted to return’ to the non-compliant property or ‘intend to do so in the future.’ " Kennedy , 998 F.3d at 1233 (quoting Shotz v. Cates , 256 F.3d 1077, 1081 (11th Cir. 2001) ).
Here, Hammonds has not alleged that he is likely to return to MCSC in the future or that he is otherwise likely to suffer some future injury that is attributable to MCSC, much less that the unspecified injunctive relief that he purports to request will likely redress said future injury. Accordingly, his claims under the ADA, whether for damages or for injunctive relief, must be dismissed.
Hammonds also brings claims of discrimination (count one), harassment (count three), and retaliation (count nine) under § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. With respect to discrimination and harassment, § 504 provides:
"No otherwise qualified individual with a disability in the United States ... shall, solely by reason of her or his disability, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance ...."
29 U.S.C. § 794(a). "To state a claim under ... § 504, a plaintiff must establish ‘(1) that he is a qualified individual with a disability; (2) that he was either excluded from participation in or denied the benefits of a public entity's services, programs, or activities, or was otherwise discriminated against by the public entity; and (3) that the exclusion, denial of benefit, or...
To continue reading
Request your trial