Jones v. PRAMSTALLER

• Decision Date: 22 December 2009
• Docket Number: Case No. 1:09-cv-392.
• Citation: Jones v. Pramstaller, 678 F. Supp.2d 609 (W.D. Mich. 2009)
• Parties: Yvette JONES, Plaintiff, v. George PRAMSTALLER, Director of Health Care Services, Nancy Martin, Coordinator of Health Care Services Risk Management, Michael Wilkinson, Registered Nurse, Tamerla Hamilton, Registered Nurse, Renee A. VanHouten, Registered Nurse, David Van Arsdale, Registered Nurse, Sherri Castenholtz, Registered Nurse, Correctional Medical Services, Inc., A Foreign Corporation, and Craig Hutchinson, Director of Correctional Medical Services, Inc., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Michigan

678 F.Supp.2d 609

Yvette JONES, Plaintiff, v.George PRAMSTALLER, Director of Health Care Services, Nancy Martin, Coordinator of Health Care Services Risk Management,¹Michael Wilkinson, Registered Nurse, Tamerla Hamilton, Registered Nurse, Renee A. VanHouten, Registered Nurse, David Van Arsdale, Registered Nurse, Sherri Castenholtz, Registered Nurse,²Correctional Medical Services, Inc., A Foreign Corporation, and Craig Hutchinson, Director of Correctional Medical Services, Inc., Defendants.

Case No. 1:09-cv-392.

United States District Court, W.D. Michigan, Southern Division.

December 22, 2009.

Kenneth D. Finegood, Kenneth D. Finegood PLC, Southfield, MI, for Plaintiff.

Brian J. Richtarcik, Randall Alan Juip, The Juiprichtarcik Law Firm, Detroit, MI, Kevin Himebaugh, MI Dept. Attorney General, Lansing, MI, for Defendants.

AMENDED^*OPINION and ORDER

Granting in Part and Denying in Part the Rule 12(c)Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings:

Granting Rule 12(c) Motion as to Eighth Amendment Claims(Counts 1 and 2) against 2 Defendants: Berghuis (Warden) and Straub (Deputy Director of Corr. Facil.Admin.)

Denying Rule 12(c) Motion as to Eighth Amendment Claims(Counts 1 and 2) against 2 Defendants: Martin (Coordinator of HealthCare Services Risk Management) and Pramsteller (Director of Health Care)

Granting Rule 12(c) Motion as to Gross Negligence Claim (Count 3) against 3 Defendants: Berghuis (Warden), Straub (Deputy Director of Corr. Facil.Admin.), and Pramsteller (Director of Health Care)

Denying Rule 12(c) Motion as to Gross Negligence Claim (Count 3) against 1 Defendant: Martin (Coordinator of HealthCare Services Risk Management)

Dismissing Defendants Berghuis and Straub from the Case

Denying without Prejudice the Motion for Summary Judgment on Ground of Qualified Immunity: Permitting the Remaining Parties to File Summary-Judgment Motions After Completion of All Discovery

PAUL L. MALONEY, Chief Judge.

This action arises out of the September 2007 death of Mr. Raymond Jones while incarcerated at the Michigan Department of Corrections("MDOC")'s Ernest Brooks Correctional Facility in Muskegon, Michigan ("the prison").See Complaint filed April 28, 2009 ("Comp")¶ 8.In May 2008, the Probate Court for Calhoun County, Michigan appointed Yvette Jones personal representative of the estate of Mr. Jones ("Jones").SeeComp. ¶ 6.Represented by counsel, Ms. Jones initiated this civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in April 2009, claiming that the defendants demonstrated deliberate indifference to the decedent's known serious medical need in violation of his Eighth Amendment right to be free of cruel and unusual punishment.

Count one asserts a section 1983 Eighth Amendment claim against the defendants directly.SeeComp. ¶¶ 43-55.Count two asserts a section 1983 Eighth Amendment claim for failure to train, failure to supervise, failure to implement protocols consistent with those of the National Commission on Correctional Health Standards, failing to develop and implement a policy for testing/diagnosing/isolating/treating inmates with contagious diseases, failing to maintain a clean prison with adequate ventilation, and finally, maintaining a policy of treating prisoners who complained of pain or sickness as malingerers undeserving of medical care and withholding such care "unless imminent death is absolutely apparent."SeeComp. ¶¶ 56-63.Count three asserts a claim of gross negligence and recklessness under Michigan common law.SeeComp. ¶¶ 64-73.This court has uncontested federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and the defendants have not contested the propriety of venue in this district under 28 U.S.C. § 1391.SeeComp. ¶¶ 2-3.

Jones sues Correctional Medical Services, Inc.("CMS"), which provides health-care to MDOC prisoners under contract with the State of Michigan, and its Director Craig Hutchinson("Hutchinson"), seeComp. ¶¶ 9-10.CMS and Hutchinson jointly filed an answer and affirmative defenses on June 5, 2009, see Docs. 9 and 10.Jones answered CMS/Hutchinson's defenses on June 19, 2009, seeDoc. 16.CMS and Hutchinson have not yet filed a dispositive motion.

Jones also sues ten MDOC employees: prison warden Mary Berghuis("Berghuis"), Correctional Facilities Administration Deputy Director Douglas Straub("Straub"), Director of Health Care Services George Pramstaller("Pramstaller"), Coordinator of Health Care Services Risk Management Nancy Martin("Martin"), and Registered Nurses Kathleen Salazar ("Salazar"), Michael Wilkinson ("Wilkinson"), Tamerla Hamilton ("Hamilton"), Renee A. VanHouten ("VanHouten"), David VanArsdale ("Van Arsdale"), and Sherri Castenholtz ("Castenholtz"), seeComp. ¶¶ 11-20.It appears that all MDOC defendants were validly served with the summons and complaint except Nurse Salazar, see Docs. 2-4, and all MDOC defendants except Nurse Salazar timely filed an answer and affirmative defenses on May 29, 2009, seeDoc. 6.Jones responded to the MDOC Defendants' answer and affirmative defenses on June 19, 2009, seeDoc. 15.The five nurses have not yet filed a dispositive motion.

On June 17, 2009, four of the nine served MDOC Defendants — Warden Berghuis, Pramstaller, Deputy Director Straub, and Healthcare Coordinator Martin — filed a FED. R. CIV. P. 12(c)motion for judgment on the pleadings and/or a FED. R. CIV. P. 56 motion for summary judgment on the ground of qualified immunity, see Docs. 13 (motion) and 14(brief).On July 15, 2009, Jones timely filed an opposition brief, seeDoc. 25.The Court heard oral argument on November 9, 2009.

For the reasons that follow, the court will grant in part and deny the motion for judgment on the pleadings.Two of the moving defendants will be dismissed from the case, warden Berghuis and deputy director Straub.The other two moving defendants, HealthCare Director Pramstaller and HealthCare Coordinator Martin, remain in the case.The court will deny without prejudice these defendants' motion for summary judgment on the ground of qualified immunity, in order to afford Jones a more complete opportunity for discovery.

LEGAL STANDARD: JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

"It is well settled that a court must review a Rule 12(c) motion under the same standard applicable to a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted."Zeigler v. Miskiewicz,2008 WL 650335, *2(S.D.OhioMar. 5, 2008)(citingLindsay v. Yates,498 F.3d 434, 438(6th Cir.2007));see alsoIn re Wells,2009 WL 2169217, *1(N.D.Ohio Bankr.July 15, 2009)(Mary Ann Whipple, Bankr. J.)("The proper standard for deciding a Rule 12(c) motion is the same as for a motion pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6).")(citingCommercial Money Ctr., Inc. v. III. Union Ins. Co.,508 F.3d 327, 336(6th Cir.2007)(Guy, Rogers, McKeague)).³

A motion for judgment on the pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) turns on legal issues, not an assessment of the evidence.Technology Recycling Corp. v. City of Taylor,186 Fed. Appx. 624, 640 n. 5(6th Cir.2006)(Griffin, J.);see alsoThomas v. Arn,474 U.S. 140, 150 n. 8, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435(1985)("Motions for judgment on the pleadings and dismissal for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted ... consist exclusively of issues of law.").A Rule 12(c) motion is simply one permissible avenue for contending that the complaint should be dismissed because it fails to state a claim on which relief can be granted.SeeArbaugh v. Y & H Corp.,546 U.S. 500, 507, 126 S.Ct. 1235, 163 L.Ed.2d 1097(2006)("a defense of failure to state a claim ... may be made in any pleading ... or by motion for judgment on the pleadings, or at the trial....")(quotingFED. R. CIV. P. 12(h)(6)).

"Like a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, a motion for judgment on the pleadings`presumes as a legal matter the lack of any need for an evidentiary hearing....'"Castleberry v. Neumann Law, P.C.,2008 WL 5744179, *6(W.D.Mich.July 9, 2008)(quotingUS v. Raddatz,447 U.S. 667, 693-94, 100 S.Ct. 2406, 65 L.Ed.2d 424(1980)).Indeed, on a Rule 12(c) motion, the court must accept all of the complaint's factual allegations as true and construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, in this casethe plaintiff.SeeTechnology Recycling,186 Fed.Appx. at 640 n. 5(citingPONI v. Miami Valley Pension Corp.,399 F.3d 692, 697(6th Cir.2005));see alsoZiegler v. IBP Hog Market, Inc.,249 F.3d 509, 511-12(6th Cir.2001);2 MOORE'S FEDERAL PRACTICE § 12.341b(Matthew Bender3d ed. 2003).But the court need not draw unwarranted factual inferences or accept the plaintiff's legal conclusions, Bohanan v. Bridgestone/Firestone North American Tire, LLC,260 Fed.Appx. 905, 905-06(6th Cir.2008)(citingMixon v. Ohio,193 F.3d 389, 400(6th Cir.1999)), even where a legal conclusion is "couched as a factual allegation."National Fair Hsg. Alliance v. Town & Country-Sterling Hts.,2009 WL 174367, *2(E.D.Mich.Jan. 26, 2009)(Steven J. Murphy III, J.)(citingMorgan v. Church's Fried Chicken,829 F.2d 10, 12(6th Cir.1987)).And each claim's factual allegations must plausibly suggest a viable claim; the claim must be plausible and not merely conceivable.Twombly,550 U.S. at 570-72127 S.Ct. at 1974.

When considering whether to grant a Rule 12(c) or 12(b)(6) motion, the court primarily considers the complaint's allegations, but may also take into account items appearing in the record and attached exhibits.LaFace Records, LLC v. Does 1-5,2008 WL 513508, *3(W.D.Mich.Feb. 22, 2008)(Maloney, J.)(citingAmini v. Oberlin College,259 F.3d 493, 502(6th Cir.2001)).The court may also consider any other items "of public record" without converting the motion into one for summary judgment.SeeBarany-Snyder v. Weiner,539 F.3d 327, 332(6th Cir.2008)(Gibbons, Sutton, D.N.J. D.J. Ackerman)(citingAmini,259 F.3d at 502).

DISCUSSION: JUDGMENT ON THE...