Jenkins v. Woody

• Decision Date: 21 January 2017
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. 3:15cv355
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Virginia
• Parties: VIRGINIA PAIGE JENKINS, Administratrix of Estate of Erin Jenkins, Plaintiff, v. SHERIFF C.T. WOODY, et al., Defendants.

VIRGINIA PAIGE JENKINS,Administratrix of Estate of Erin Jenkins, Plaintiff, v. SHERIFF C.T. WOODY, et al., Defendants.

Civil Action No. 3:15cv355

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division

January 21, 2017

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter comes before the Court on the following motions: (1) Defendant Sheriff C.T. Woody's Motion for Summary Judgment, (ECF No. 137); and, (2) Defendant Deputy Elizabeth Beaver's Motion for Summary Judgment, (ECF No. 145). Sheriff Woody and Deputy Beaver filed the motions for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56.¹

Plaintiff Virginia Paige Jenkins² has responded to both motions for summary judgment, (ECF Nos. 165, 167,³ 180), and both Sheriff Woody and Deputy Beaver have replied, (ECF Nos. 200, 201). The Court heard oral argument, and the matter is ripe for disposition. The Courtexercises jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331⁴ and 1367.⁵ For the reasons that follow, the Court will grant in part and deny in part the Sheriff Woody Motion for Summary Judgment and deny the Deputy Beaver Motion for Summary Judgment.

I. Factual and Procedural Background

A. Procedural Background

Plaintiff filed a Complaint against various defendants alleging, on behalf of Ms. Jenkins's estate, violations of the Fourteenth Amendment,⁶ state law negligence, and medical malpractice. (ECF No. 1.) After Plaintiff filed her First Amended Complaint, (ECF No. 25), this Court granted in part and denied in part two motions to dismiss filed separately by Sheriff Woody and Defendant Correct Care Solutions, LLC ("CCS"), (ECF No. 50). With leave of court, Plaintiff filed her Second Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 51.) Following an Initial Pretrial Conference, Plaintiff requested leave to file a third amended complaint, (ECF No. 86), which the Courtgranted orally at a hearing. Plaintiff then filed her Third Amended Complaint, adding the following as party defendants: Nurse Demetrice Smith, Licensed Clinical Social Worker ("LCSW") Tatjana Jerkovic, Corporal Vivian Hudson-Parham, Lieutenant Johnathan Scott, and the John Doe(s) responsible for removing Ms. Jenkins from medical observation on August 1, 2014. (ECF No. 92.)

On July 29, 2016, Plaintiff filed her Motion for Sanctions against Sheriff Woody "for intentional destruction of relevant evidence, deliberate concealment of relevant evidence and for deliberate non-compliance with discovery rules."⁷ (Mot. Sanctions 1, ECF No. 112.) Plaintiff argues that Sheriff Woody failed to preserve video camera footage taken of Ms. Jenkins's jail cell which would show the events "leading up to and surrounding [Ms.] Jenkins's death." (Mem. Supp. Mot. Sanctions 2, ECF No. 113.) Sheriff Woody filed a response opposing the requested sanctions, (ECF No. 114), as did Deputy Beaver, Corporal Hudson-Parham, and Lieutenant Scott, (ECF No. 116). Because it had to assess prejudice, the Court reserved ruling on the Motion for Sanctions until the parties presented their arguments for summary judgment. The Court issues a separate opinion regarding sanctions contemporaneous to this one.

On November 30, 2016, upon motion by the parties, the Court dismissed the following defendants from this action: Crissy Royall, Aikysha Paige, Demetrice Smith, Khairul Bashar Mohammed Emran, M.D., and Tatjana Jerkovic. On December 20, 2016, the Court held ahearing on the Joint Petition for Approval of a Wrongful Death Settlement filed by Plaintiff and CCS. (ECF No. 126.) The Court approved the wrongful death settlement between Plaintiff and CCS and dismissed CCS from the case. (ECF No. 174.) The Court dismissed Corporal Hudson-Parham and Lieutenant Scott on motion by the parties earlier this month. (ECF No. 218.) Only Sheriff Woody and Deputy Beaver remain as defendants.

The following causes of action against Sheriff Woody and Deputy Beaver, articulated in the Third Amended Complaint, remain:

"COUNT I: § 1983 Defendant Woody - Policy or Custom of Deliberate Indifference to Serious Medical Needs Resulting in Cruel and Unusual Punishment"

"COUNT II: § 1983 Claim Against Sheriff Woody (Supervisory Liability) - Deliberate Indifference to Serious Medical Needs Resulting in Cruel and Unusual Punishment"

"COUNT III: § 1983 Claim Against Jail Staff⁸- Deliberate Indifference to Serious Medical Needs Resulting in Cruel and Unusual Punishment"

"COUNT VI: State Law Claims Against Defendant Sheriff Woody and Jail Staff - Gross Negligence"

Sheriff Woody moves for summary judgment on Counts I, II, and VI. Deputy Beaver moves for summary judgment on Counts III and VI. Plaintiff opposes summary judgment on all counts.

B. Factual Background

This action involves Ms. Jenkins's death while in custody as a pretrial detainee at the RCJC. When the RCJC opened, it was equipped with a new video recording system that included more than 500 cameras covering the jail, inside and out. On August 1, 2014, the nightbefore Ms. Jenkins's death, and her last night in the RCJC, cameras were "working and operational" and recording properly in and around her cell.⁹ (Witham Dep. 82, ECF No 113-2.)

Sheriff Woody testified that video surveillance in the jail serves many purposes:

Well, live action that can be monitored on certain on—on—on the pods. I can come in here and, if an incident happened yesterday or two weeks from now, put the date, you put the time in and you can replay the whole thing. And you can use it for investigative purposes. You can use it for safety purposes. You can use it for people that's—the resident them self [sic] who lies oftenly [sic] about how something happened and what happened before.

And so it's a—sort of a truth serum. It's been very, very helpful to us employment-wise as well as safety-wise and for the residents when they file grievances and just a real live thing of what's happening, what—what really happened.

(Woody Dep. 27, ECF No. 113-4 (emphasis added).) On August 1, 2014, four days into the RCJC's operations, Ms. Jenkins was found in her cell incoherent, incontinent, and not breathing. During the five hours before Ms. Jenkins was found incoherent in her isolation cell, the RCJC's video system recorded all activity there. Ms. Jenkins was transported from the RCJC to VCU Medical Hospital, where she died on August 2, 2014.

1. Ms. Jenkins's Detention at the Richmond City Justice Center

Ms. Jenkins entered the RCJC¹⁰ as a pretrial detainee on July 25, 2014, three days before the RCJC's formal opening. After CCS¹¹ performed a medical screening, Ms. Jenkinswas placed on an opiate withdrawal protocol and housed in Section¹² 3C of the RCJC's general population. Upon screening, Ms. Jenkins's medical presentation was healthy. At some point on Wednesday, July 30, 2014, Ms. Jenkins was transferred to Section 3A1, an isolation cell. Section 3A1 is depicted variously in the record as being a medical, mental health, or detox isolation section.

a. July 30, 2014; Confusion Over Ms. Jenkins's Transfer

The record conflicts as to how Ms. Jenkins's transfer to medical isolation on July 30, 2014 occurred. Deputy Priscilla Wright, who was monitoring Ms. Jenkins's first location, Section 3C, contacted medical. Deputy Wright testified that she wanted to move Ms. Jenkins for Ms. Jenkins's own protection because she was waking people up and they were "getting a little irritated." (Wright Dep. 11, ECF No. 165-8.) Deputy Wright remembered Nurse Yukima Nuttall helping Ms. Jenkins, but also testified that "medical didn't want to move [Ms. Jenkins], so I had to call Classification, Mr. Bassfield also." (Id.)

On the other hand, the medical personnel implicated in approving Ms. Jenkins's transfer deny involvement. LCSW Tatjana Jerkovic denies signing an inmate housing form requesting medical isolation for Ms. Jenkins's mental health. Nurse Nuttal also testified that she did not recall speaking to a Sheriff's deputy during that time and that she does not recall examining Jenkins and arranging for a transfer to Section 3A1. Nurse Nutall testified that she would have made notes had she examined Ms. Jenkins. Nurse Nutall also swore that she could not have been involved in "doing housing transfers" because CCS protocol prevented it. (Nutall Dep. 23, ECFNo. 165-10.) The record lacks any contemporaneous record of Nurse Nutall evaluating Ms. Jenkins prior to the transfer to Section 3A1.

b. July 30 and July 31, 2014: Ms. Jenkins's Symptoms Commence

The July 30, 2014 Logbook indicates that, at 4:09 a.m., Corporal Vivian Hudson-Parham¹³ brought Ms. Jenkins from Section 3C to Section 3A1 "per Nurse Nutall." (Logbook 8, ECF No. 138-8.) Deputy Beaver¹⁴ had responsibility for monitoring inmates on the third floor, which included Section 3A1, between 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. At 5:28 a.m., Deputy Beaver noticed Ms. Jenkins "talking to [her]self" and using a "pretend phone." (Logbook 10, ECF No. 138-8.) Two nurses had contact with Jenkins during Deputy Beaver's July 30, 2014 overnight shift: Nurse Maya Vaughn took Ms. Jenkins's blood pressure at 9:20 p.m.; and, Nurse Daniels checked all the third-floor inmates at 11:05 p.m.

Deputy Janet Wilkes-Gaskins relieved Deputy Beaver on Thursday, July 31, 2014, at 7:00 a.m. Deputy Wilkes-Gaskin noted at 7:46 a.m. that "[Ms.] Jenkins did not eat or drink anything." (Logbook 13, ECF No. 138-8.) At 9:01 a.m., Dr. Emran¹⁵ ordered Ms. Jenkins'stransfer from Section 3A1 to Section 2Med.¹⁶ At 9:30 a.m., Dr. Emran examined Ms. Jenkins, and in a Progress Note, noted a "history of Percocet abuse" and "hallucinating." (Emran Physician's Order of Erin N. Jenkins, ECF Nos. 138-11, 147-6.) Dr. Emran further noted the physical examination of Ms. Jenkins as "unremarkable." (Emran Progress Note, ECF No. 138-11.) In testimony, Dr. Emran explained that Ms. Jenkins showed no physical symptoms of withdrawal, but he saw her talking, for a short time, to someone who was not there. Otherwise, Ms. Jenkins appropriately responded to each examination question. Dr. Emran testified that Ms....