Hollis v. Erdos

• Decision Date: 12 May 2020
• Docket Number: Case No. 1:19-cv-436
• Citation: 480 F.Supp.3d 823
• Parties: Dontez HOLLIS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Ronald ERDOS, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Ohio

480 F.Supp.3d 823

Dontez HOLLIS, et al., Plaintiffs,

v.Ronald ERDOS, et al., Defendants.

Case No. 1:19-cv-436

United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Western Division.

Signed May 12, 2020

Sean L. Walton, Jr., Walton Brown, LLP, Columbus, OH, Solomon M. Radner, Pro Hac Vice, Excolo Law, PLLC, Southfield, MI, for Plaintiffs.

Byron D. Turner, Thomas E. Madden, Office of the Ohio Attorney General Criminal Justice Section, Columbus, OH, for Defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER

DOUGLAS R. COLE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

This cause comes before the Court on Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc. 12) and Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint (Doc. 19). For the following reasons, the Court DENIES IN PART and GRANTS IN PART Defendants’ Motion and GRANTS Plaintiffs’ Motion.

BACKGROUND

For purposes of the present motions, the Court accepts as true the following facts, which are set forth in Plaintiffs’ Complaint filed June 7, 2019. (See Compl., Doc. 1, #1–21¹ ). Plaintiff Dontez Hollis ("Hollis") was formerly incarcerated in the Southern Ohio Correctional Facility ("SOCF"), but at the time this proceeding was initiated, he had been released. (Compl. at ¶ 5, #3). Plaintiff Darryl Pascol ("Pascol") is currently incarcerated at the Madison Correctional Institution, but at the time of the alleged events, was also housed at SOCF. (Id. at ¶ 6, #4).

A. The June 4, 2017 Stabbing.

Hollis's and Pascol's claims all stem from an alleged stabbing that occurred while they were incarcerated at SOCF. On June 4, 2017, Hollis and Pascol were permitted to leave their respective cells for recreation time. (Id. at ¶ 16, #5). Usually, before inmates are permitted out of their cells for recreational time, they are strip-searched by corrections officers, which is the "normal procedure" at SOCF. (Id. at ¶¶ 16–17, #5–6). That day, however, Hollis and Pascol were "not strip searched or thoroughly frisked" before being let out for recreation time. (Id. at ¶ 19, #6). Once outside their cells, Hollis and Pascol were "handcuffed to a table," which allowed them "only a few inches of hand movement," but that was enough mobility to play cards with the two other inmates also handcuffed to the table. (Id. at ¶¶ 19–20).

While the four men were "peacefully playing spades[,]" Hollis and Pascol observed two corrections officers, Defendant Officers Faye ("Officer Faye") and Dalton ("Officer Dalton") talking to another inmate, Gregory Reinke ("Reinke"), who was still in his cell. (Id. at ¶¶ 22–23). They allege that Reinke is "a Caucasian inmate" and "known white supremacist and member of the Aryan Brotherhood gang." (Id. at ¶ 24). Hollis and Pascol imply that they are African American. (Id. at ¶ 25 ("Defendant Officers took Reinke out of his cell and placed him at a table next to the table Mr. Hollis and Mr. Pascol and the other African American inmates were playing cards.")).

Hollis and Pascol then allege that Officers Faye and Dalton, after similarly failing to strip search Reinke, but "before placing [him] at the table next to the Plaintiffs," either gave Reinke, or knew or should have known that Reinke had, a key or some "other device" that would permit him to remove his handcuffs. (Id. at ¶ 26, #6–7). Reinke, because he had this "key" or "other device," was able to, "about 20-30 minutes" later, "unlock his handcuffs[,]" "pull[ ] an 8-inch blade out of his sock[,]" and begin stabbing or attempting to stab Hollis, Pascol, and the two other inmates at their table. (Id. at ¶ 29, #7). Still handcuffed to the table, Hollis and Pascol were initially unable to defend themselves, but Hollis eventually "pull[ed] his hands out of the handcuffs" and "tackled Reinke to the ground." (Id. at ¶ 39, #8). Before that happened, though, Reinke had already stabbed Pascol and the two other inmates several times. (Id. at ¶¶ 33–34, #7).

Hollis and Pascol allege that Officers Dalton and Faye did not immediately respond to the attack. Instead, they allege the Officers "stood and watched" from "ten feet away behind a locked door[,]" and "laughed" as Reinke carried out the attack. (Id. at ¶¶ 35–38, #7–8). Only after Hollis freed himself did Officers Dalton and Faye intervene, and even then, they allegedly did so by pepper spraying Hollis, not Reinke. (Id. at ¶¶ 40–42, #8).

Hollis and Pascol further allege that while Pascol and the other inmates were "bleeding out with severe injuries," Officers Faye and Dalton did not provide first aid, but again "just stood and watched." (Id. at ¶¶ 43, 45). They also allege that Defendant John Doe Sergeant ("Sergeant John Doe") was present "after the stabbing" and "did not provide any first aid[,]" "direct any other else [sic] to provide first aid[,]" and "attempted to prevent and deny" the inmates from getting proper medical attention. (Id. at ¶¶ 46–47, #8–9). In fact, they allege Officers Faye, Dalton, and Sergeant John Doe said to each other " ‘we should just let them die[,]’ " in reference to Pascol and the two other inmates who Reinke stabbed. (Id. at ¶ 48, #9).

Hollis and Pascol allege it took "at least ten minutes" for "the nurses from health care" to arrive and begin administering first aid. (Id. at ¶ 49). Pascol was life flighted to The Ohio State University hospital; Hollis was injured escaping his handcuffs and in the ensuing struggle, but was apparently treated at SOCF. (Id. at ¶¶ 50–51). Hollis alleges he filed his grievance shortly after the incident; Pascol alleges he filed his grievance "as soon as [he] was taken off life support." (Id. at ¶¶ 58–59, #10).

B. Hollis And Pascol's Complaint.

The two men subsequently filed suit against Officers Faye, Dalton, Warden Ronald Erdos ("Warden"), Sergeant John Doe, and John Doe Nurses and Corrections Officers. They assert six counts, all of which arise under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.² Two of the claims, though, Count I and Count VI, are of particular importance to the pending Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. That is because those two claims are the only ones that are asserted in whole (Count VI), or in part (Count I), against the Warden in his personal capacity.

In terms of their claims against the Warden, Hollis and Pascol make several conclusory allegations in the background section of their Complaint. Specifically, they claim that Reinke was a "known threat of violence in the prison," had a history of "misconduct and violence[,]" that he was "known by Defendant Warden and the staff ... to carry shanks in violation of prison rules[,]" and that he had "been caught with shanks and/or knives on at least five different occasions." (Compl. at ¶¶ 53–56, #9). Specifically, they allege that Reinke "attempted to stab inmates on at least two other occasions prior to" this incident. (Id. at ¶ 56, #10). They further allege Reinke was "a threat to the safety of others," but claim the Warden "did nothing to prevent" this attack and that he "failed to train and supervise his subordinates" and "implicitly approved, authorized, or acquiesced" to unconstitutional behavior by the other Defendants. (Id. at ¶ 57, #10).

Based on these, and other, allegations, in Count I of the Complaint, Hollis and Pascol allege that three Defendants—Faye, Dalton, and the Warden—violated their Eighth Amendment rights by failing to protect them from Reinke's attack. Importantly, they do not allege that the Warden was present when the attack occurred, or in any way encouraged or directed the conduct of the corrections officers in connection with this particular event. Rather, picking up on the theme from the background allegations, they claim that the Warden knew of the risks that Reinke presented, but that he was deliberately indifferent to those risks. (Id. at ¶ 74, #12).

In Count VI, labeled "Supervisory Individual Liability" and directed solely at the Warden, Hollis and Pascol allege that the Warden "was responsible for the supervision, discipline, and control of all Southern Ohio Correctional Facility correctional officers," and that he "at least implicitly approved, authorized, or acquiesced in his/her [sic] subordinates’ misconduct." (Id. at ¶ 122, #19). They further allege that, "[d]espite [the Warden's] knowledge of a threat to inmate safety, Defendant Warden did not train and supervise Defendant Officers on dealing with inmates who pose a threat to other inmates’ safety." (Id. at ¶ 125, #20). Once again, though, they do not allege that the Warden was in any way directly involved with this specific incident, other than that it followed from his alleged failure to train and supervise generally.

PENDING MOTIONS

On August 20, 2019, the Defendants filed their Answer (Doc. 6) and on October 2, 2019, they filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. (Defs.’ Mot. for J. on the Pleadings ("Defs.’ Mot."), Doc. 12, #62–75). While the Defendants’ Motion was pending, Hollis and Pascol filed a Motion for Leave to Amend their Complaint. (Pls.’ Mot. for Leave to Am. Compl. ("Pls.’ Mot."), Doc. 19, #122–25). Since that time, the parties have moved forward with discovery.

A. Motion For Judgment On The Pleadings.

Defendants make two principal arguments in their Motion. First, they argue that all six counts set forth in the Complaint are barred by Ohio's two-year statute of limitations, as the Complaint was filed three days after that two-year limitations period expired. (Defs.’ Mot. at #63). Second, in the event the entire Complaint is not untimely, Defendants argue that Hollis and Pascol fail to state a viable personal-capacity claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Warden (either under Count I or Count VI) because there is no "respondent [sic] superior" liability under that statute. (Id. ).

Hollis and Pascol disagree. First, they argue that their claims are timely because the Prison Litigation Reform Act tolled the statute of limitations while they exhausted their administrative remedies. (Pls.’ Resp. in Opp'n to Defs.’ Mot. ("Pls.’ Opp'n"), Doc. 13, #80). Second, they argue that the claim against the Warden is viable...