Jones v. Grant

CourtU.S. District Court — Eastern District of Arkansas
Decision Date19 May 2021
Docket NumberNo. 4:19-cv-00527 PSH,4:19-cv-00527 PSH
CitationJones v. Grant, No. 4:19-cv-00527 PSH (E.D. Ark. May 19, 2021)
PartiesJULIA PRINCE JONES PLAINTIFF v. KAREN GRANT and CALENE SCOTT DEFENDANTS
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
I. Introduction

Plaintiff Julia Prince Jones ("Jones") filed this lawsuit against Nurse Karen Grant and Sergeant Calene Scott (the "Defendants") in both their individual and official capacities pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101, et seq., as amended ("ADA"), the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794 ("RA"), the Arkansas Civil Rights Act ("ARCA"), and Ark. Code Ann. § 16-118-107 (civil action by crime victim statute). Doc. No. 21. Jones alleges that, while incarcerated at the Faulkner County Detention Center ("FCDC"), she was placed in a restraint chair for many hours without appropriate medical treatment. Id. Jones alleges that Sergeant Scott placed her in the restraint chair and Nurse Grant was responsible for providing medical treatment while Jones was incarcerated at the FCDC. Id. Jones seeks damages and injunctive relief, although she is no longer incarcerated at the FCDC. Id. at 7-8.

Before the Court is the motion for summary judgment, a brief in support, and statement of undisputed material facts filed by the Defendants (Doc. Nos. 27-29). Jones filed a response, supporting brief, and statement of disputed material facts (Doc. Nos. 32-34). The Defendants filed a reply (Doc. No. 35). For the reasons described herein, the Defendants' motion for summary judgment is granted.

II. Legal Standard

Under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, summary judgment is proper if "the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); Celotex v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 321 (1986). When ruling on a motion for summary judgment, the court must view the evidence in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Naucke v. City of Park Hills, 284 F.3d 923, 927 (8th Cir. 2002). The nonmoving party may not rely on allegations or denials, but must demonstrate the existence of specific facts that create a genuine issue for trial. Mann v. Yarnell, 497 F.3d 822, 825 (8th Cir. 2007). The nonmoving party's allegations must be supported by sufficient probative evidence that would permit a finding in his favor on more than mere speculation, conjecture, or fantasy. Id. (citations omitted). An assertion that a fact cannot be disputed or is genuinely disputed must be supported by materials in the record such as "depositions, documents, electronically stored information, affidavits or declarations, stipulations (includingthose made for purposes of the motion only), admissions, interrogatory answers, or other materials . . .". Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(A). A party may also show that a fact is disputed or undisputed by "showing that the materials cited do not establish the absence or presence of a genuine dispute, or that an adverse party cannot produce admissible evidence to support the fact." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(B). A dispute is genuine if the evidence is such that it could cause a reasonable jury to return a verdict for either party; a fact is material if its resolution affects the outcome of the case. Othman v. City of Country Club Hills, 671 F.3d 672, 675 (8th Cir. 2012). Disputes that are not genuine or that are about facts that are not material will not preclude summary judgment. Sitzes v. City of West Memphis, Ark., 606 F.3d 461, 465 (8th Cir. 2010).

III. Facts

Grant and Scott filed a statement of the material facts as to which they contend there is no genuine dispute to be tried (Doc. No. 29). Grant and Scott also submitted Jones' medical records from Conway Regional Medical System (Doc. No. 29-1); an affidavit by FCDC Jail Administrator Chris Reidmueller attaching relevant jail policies1 and documents from Jones' jail file (Doc. No. 29-2); an affidavit by Grant (Doc. No. 29-3); and an affidavit by Scott (Doc. No. 29-4).

Jones filed a response to the statement in which she admitted some of the facts, admitted other facts but with qualifications or argument,2 and denied still other facts with no explanation or citation to documentary evidence (Doc. No. 33).3 Jones also submitted the following exhibits: Criminal Detention Facility Standards 2014 (Doc. No. 32-1); Arkansas Department of Health Rules and Regulations for Hospitals and Related Institutions in Arkansas (Doc. No. 32-2); the deposition of Jones4 (Doc. No. 32-3); the deposition of Defendant Karen Grant (Doc. No. 32-4); the deposition of non-party Tracee Williams (Doc. No. 32-5); and the deposition of Defendant Calene Scott (Doc. No. 32-6).

Having reviewed the Defendants' statement of facts, Jones' response, and the other pleadings and exhibits, the Court finds the following facts.

Jones' Attempted Suicide and Treatment at Conway Regional

On February 4, 2019, Jones attempted to commit suicide by taking a large number of barbiturates, and her husband took her to Conway Regional MedicalCenter's Emergency Department.5 The hospital records reflect that at some point after she arrived, Jones began screaming at, and threatening to kill, members of the hospital staff; swinging at, and hitting, staff members; biting her husband; and threatening to "blow up the emergency department." Doc. No. 29-1, Conway Regional Medical Records, at 13-14, 16, 21. Jones denies she committed assault and battery.6 Doc. No. 33 at 1. The hospital records reflect that after Jones calmed down, "she reported it was not a suicide attempt but that she just wanted to feel better after a bad day." Doc. No. 29-1 at 21. Jones also "endorsed remorse about biting her husband while he was attempting to assist staff, threatening to kill [them]." Id. at 25. Jones was not given any medications at the Emergency Department, and she was not admitted for further evaluation or treatment. Id. at 2-20. Upon discharge, Jones was advised to see her primary care provider at her next available appointment. Id. at 6. The Conway Police Department was contacted, and Jones was "disch[arged] to law enforcement" at 8:02 p.m. Id. at 3. Her condition was listed as stable at the time of her discharge. Id. at 4 & 25.

Arrest & Detention at FCDC

Conway police officers arrested Jones for offenses that included assault and terroristic threatening, then transported her to the FCDC where she was incarcerated. Doc. No. 29-2, Riedmueller Affidavit and Jail Records, at 3-5. A notation on an intake form reflects that Jones "did not remember being treated [at] the hospital—stated she took 120 phenobarbitals trying to kill herself [and] would do so again . . ." Id. at 9. Almost immediately upon entering the jail, she became disruptive, banging her head on a door and threatening self-harm and suicide. Id. at 25-26; Doc. No. 29-4, Calene Scott Affidavit, at 1.

According to Defendant Sergeant Scott, a supervisor in booking, he authorized Jones' placement in a restraint chair for her own protection because of her actions of self-harm. Doc. No. 29-4 at 1; Doc. No. 32-6, Deposition Testimony of Calene Scott, at 4, 8. A restraint chair is a "slightly reclining chair with locking straps at the ankles and wrists." See Doc. No. 29 at 1. At 8:30 p.m., Corporal Joseph Scott placed Jones in a restraint chair. Doc. No. 29-2 at 10, 25. While Defendant Sergeant Scott does not recall assisting with Jones' placement in the chair, he does not dispute reports that indicate he did. Doc. No. 29-4 at 1. Sergeant Scott's shift ended at 11 p.m. on February 4, 2019, approximately two and one half hours after Jones was placed in the restraint chair. Doc. No. 32-6 at 13.

Jones remained incarcerated at the FCDC until February 6, 2019, when she was involuntarily committed and taken to St. Vincent Hospital. The Court summarizes below restraint logs, incident reports, and statements from officers at the FCDC to describe her time there.

February 4, 2019

A FCDC Suicide and Medical Watch Log dated February 4, 2019, indicates that Jones was placed in the restraint chair at 20:30 (8:30 p.m.). Doc. No. 29-1 at 10. A box marked "suicide watch" was checked, and a box marked "medical watch" was not checked.7 Approximately every 15 minutes, an officer initialed the watch log and entered notations about Jones' status. From 20:42 until 21:45, the notations indicate that Jones was "yelling in chair." From 22:00 until 22:30, the notations indicate she was showering. From 22:45 until 1:00, the remarks indicate she was yelling in the chair. The officers' initials on this log include: JS, TS, TW, and KH.

February 5, 2019

Another log dated February 4, 2019, but starting at 1:00 a.m. also listed Jones as being on suicide watch. Doc. No. 29-2 at 11. (It appears this is the log for themorning of February 5, 2019, since Jones was not incarcerated at the FCDC at 1:00 a.m. on February 4, 2019.) The remarks on this log indicate that Jones was checked approximately every 15 minutes until 6:35 a.m. and was yelling in the chair at each check. However, no remark was made between 2:49 and 3:15 a.m. or 3:30 and 4:00 a.m. (i.e., there is no notation of any kind at 3:00 a.m. or 3:45 a.m.). The officers' initials on this log include: TW, TS, and KH.

An incident report dated February 5, 2019, contains statements by two officers regarding a bathroom break for Jones at approximately 3:00 a.m.8 Doc. No. 29-2 at 17. Officer Tracee Williams stated:

On the above date approximated time I officer Tracee Williams and Officer Karrie Hall were instructed by to give Detainee Julia Jones a bathroom break. Before we let her up she threaten to shoot us and fight us as I uncuffed her I asked her was she going to be combative. She stated that she would not. She could not walk and did not have to use the bathroom so I put her back into the chair where she then started kicking and hitting Officer Hall and I. She then put her fingernails into Officer Hall.
...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex