Keele v. Glynn Cnty.

Decision Date29 March 2013
Docket NumberNo. CV 211–074.,CV 211–074.
Citation938 F.Supp.2d 1270
PartiesJana KEELE, individually and as administrator of the estate of Kara Thompson, deceased, Plaintiff, v. GLYNN COUNTY, GEORGIA, Wayne V. Bennett, individually and in his official capacity, Jeffrey Gunderson, individually and in his official capacity, John Orr, individually and in his official capacity, Jessica Carnette, individually and in her official capacity, Gary Hollingsworth, individually and in his official capacity, Helen Brown, individually and in her official capacity, Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — Southern District of Georgia

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Wilbur D. Owens, III, Lewis, Owens & Mulherin, Savannah, GA, Brad Sims McLelland, Whitworth & McLelland, LLC, Brunswick, GA, for Plaintiff.

Terry L. Readdick, Steven Blackerby, Brown, Readdick, Bumgartner, Carter, Strickland, & Watkins, LLP, Aaron W. Mumford, Brunswick, GA, for Defendants.

ORDER

LISA GODBEY WOOD, Chief Judge.

Presently before the Court is Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. See Dkt. No. 44. Upon due consideration, Defendants' motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

This action is predicated on the tragic death of Plaintiff's daughter, Kara Thompson (“Thompson”). See Dkt. No. 1. Specifically, Thompson succumbed to necrotizing tracheobroncitis and pneumonia while detained in the Glynn County Detention Center (“GCDC”) in May 2009. See id.

Plaintiff's general theory of liability is that, while detained, Thompson's access to necessary medical care was delayed or deficient and that the delay or deficiency led to Thompson's death. Plaintiff's Complaint has eight (8) counts. See id. In Counts 1, 4, 7, and 8, Plaintiff asserts federal law claims. Specifically, Count 1 asserts claims of constitutional violations against Defendant Glynn County and the remaining Defendants in their official capacities. Count 7 asserts claims of constitutional violations against four (4) individual Defendants in their individual capacities. Count 4 seeks attorney's fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988. Count 8 seeks punitive damages for the individual Defendants' constitutional violations.

In Counts 2, 3, 5, and 6, Plaintiff asserts state law claims. Specifically, Count 2 asserts violations of state statutes pertaining to detainee supervision and care by DefendantGlynn County and Defendant Bennett. Counts 3 and 6 assert tort claims against Defendants Bennett and Orr. Count 5 asserts tort claims against Defendant Gunderson.

Defendant Gunderson moved for summary judgment on all claims against him. Dkt. No. 40. Plaintiff consented to Defendant Gunderson's motion. Dkt. No. 52. The Court approved the parties' agreement. See Dkt. No. 76. Accordingly, references to Defendants in the remainder of this Order refer to the remaining Defendants.

Defendants moved for summary judgment on all of Plaintiff's claims. See Dkt. No. 44. This motion is fully briefed. See Dkt. Nos. 53, 75. The Court heard oral argument regarding the motion on December 18, 2012.

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The relevant facts are taken principally from the parties' Statements of Material Facts and responses thereto. Dkt. Nos. 44–1, 57, 57–1.1 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(e) and Local Rule 56.1, all material facts not specifically controverted by specific citation to the record are deemed admitted, unless otherwise inappropriate.

Where the parties offer conflicting accounts of the events in question, this Court draws all inferences and presents all evidence in the light most favorable to Plaintiff. SeeHamilton v. Southland Christian Sch., Inc., 680 F.3d 1316, 1318 (11th Cir.2012) (citation omitted).

A. GCDC1. C–Pod

The GCDC consists of six (6) housing units or “pods.” Dkt. No. 57–1 ¶ 1. Female inmates at the GCDC were detained in C–Pod. Id. In May 2009, C–Pod housed approximately eighty-eight (88) inmates, approximately twenty-four (24) inmates above design capacity. Id. ¶ 102.

2. Detention Officers

GCDC detention officers worked twelve (12) hour shifts. Id. ¶ 3. The day shift was from 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Id. The night shift was from 6:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. Id.

One officer worked in the C–Pod control station during each shift. Id. ¶ 1. That officer was relieved from her duty station to perform hourly rounds (or for any other reason) by a floater, supervisor, booking officer, or other available personnel. Id. ¶ 5.

3. GCDC Medical Personnel

In 2009, the GCDC's only doctor was Doctor Jeffrey Gunderson.2Id. ¶ 20. Dr. Gunderson was an independent contractor. Dkt. No. 55–18, at 14–15. Dr. Gunderson hired and paid one (1) physician assistant. Id. at 15, 34–35. Neither Dr. Gunderson nor his assistant was a GCDC employee. Dkt. No. 57–1 ¶ 20–21. All other GCDC medical personnel were county and sheriff's office employees. Id. ¶ 21. Neither the county nor the sheriff's department consulted Dr. Gunderson regarding GCDC policy or staffing needs. Id. ¶¶ 21, 105.

Dr. Gunderson worked twenty (20) hours per week and was on call twenty-four (24) hours per day, every day. Dkt. No. 55–18, at 14–15. In general, his assistant performed initial evaluations and handled sick call on Thursday and Friday mornings. Id. at 15. In general, Dr. Gunderson handled such tasks Saturday through Wednesday. Dkt. No. 57–1 ¶ 20.

Two (2) licensed practical nurses (“LPNs”) worked during most, if not all, day shifts. Id. ¶ 7. Frequently, an LPN worked during night shifts. Id. Sometimes the LPN was also the GCDC “floater” during the night shift. Id. Dr. Gunderson instructed Nurse John Orr, an LPN, to notify Dr. Gunderson if Nurse Orr learned that an inmate was withdrawing from drugs. Dkt. No. 55–18, at 63.

B. Thompson's Detention

In May 2009, Thompson was seventeen (17) years old. She lived with Plaintiff. Dkt. No. 1, at 4.

While visiting Plaintiff and Thompson, Thompson's grandmother discovered that approximately $250 was missing from her purse and car. Id. She assumed that Thompson took the money. Id. To teach Thompson a lesson, Thompson's grandmother took a warrant out, alleging that Thompson took the missing money. Id.

1. Day 1: Friday, May 8, 2009

On Friday, May 8, Thompson was arrested. Id. She was booked at the GCDC. Id. During the intake process, Thompson reported that she had previously been treated for drug addiction. Dkt. Nos. 44–1 ¶ 7; 57 ¶ 7. Thompson also stated that she may have a broken rib for which she had already been treated. Dkt. Nos. 44–1 ¶ 8; 57 ¶ 8. Starting Friday, Thompson ate and drank very little, if anything, other than water.3 Dkt. No. 57–1 ¶ 65. From Friday, May 8, until Sunday, May 10, she often gave her food to other inmates. Dkt. No. 55–5, at 45. Moreover, Thompson regurgitated much, if not all, of the food that she did consume. Dkt. No. 57–1 ¶ 65. Thompson's minimal food consumption and vomiting continued throughout the week. Id. ¶¶ 65, 66.

Sometime Friday, Inmate Amber Lambert filled out and submitted a sick call sheet for Thompson. Dkt. No. 55–1, at 20. The sick call sheet requested pain medication for Thompson's sore ribs.4Id.

2. Day 2: Saturday, May 9, 2009

On Saturday, May 9, Thompson told Detention Officer Helen Brown that her rib hurt. Dkt. Nos. 44–1 ¶ 9; 57 ¶ 9. Officer Brown notified the on-duty nurse. Dkt. Nos. 44–1 ¶ 10; 57 ¶ 10. The nurse gave Thompson Ibuprofen and an ice pack to ease the discomfort. Dkt. Nos. 44–1 ¶ 10; 57 ¶ 10.

Also on May 9, Plaintiff delivered two (2) medications to the GCDC. Dkt. Nos. 44–1 ¶ 11; 57 ¶ 11. Thompson was prescribed these medications prior to her detention. Dkt. Nos. 44–1 ¶ 11; 57 ¶ 11. They were prescribed because of Thompson's rib injury. Dkt. Nos. 44–1 ¶ 11; 57 ¶ 11. During her detention, Thompson received these medications as prescribed. Dkt. Nos. 44–1 ¶ 12; 57 ¶ 12.

Officer Brown brought Thompson's lunch to her in her cell.5 Dkt. No. 55–5, at 27.6

Sometime during the weekend, Thompson had “the shakes.” Dkt. No. 55–10, at 11. Thompson lay around and slept for much of the weekend. Dkt. No. 55–5, at 11–13.

3. Day 3: Sunday, May 10, 2009

Every morning at 6:30 a.m., GCDC officers inspected the inmates' cells for cleanliness. Id. at 15. Beginning Sunday, May 10, inmates made Thompson's bed and cleaned her cell because Thompson could not or would not do so. Dkt. No. 55–8, at 39. This continued throughout the week. Id.

Officer Brown brought Thompson's lunch to her in her cell.7 Dkt. No. 55–5, at 27.8

4. Day 4: Monday, May 11, 2009

Sometime Monday morning, Dr. Gunderson performed Thompson's initial medical screening.9 Dkt. Nos. 44–1 ¶ 13; 57 ¶ 13. Dr. Gunderson questioned Thompson about her medical history. Dkt. Nos. 44–1 ¶ 13; 57 ¶ 13. He did not perform a physical evaluation. Dkt. Nos. 44–1 ¶ 13; 57 ¶ 13. Because Thompson reported that she had not taken illicit drugs, Dr. Gunderson did not place Thompson on a drug detox protocol. Dkt. Nos. 44–1 ¶ 14; 57 ¶ 14.

At approximately 10:30 p.m. on Monday, May 11, Thompson told Detention Officer Jessica Carnette that she had rashes over her body. Dkt. Nos. 44–1 ¶ 15; 57 ¶ 15. Officer Carnette notified Nurse Orr. Dkt. Nos. 44–1 ¶ 16; ¶ ¶ 16. Nurse Orr examined Thompson. Dkt. Nos. 44–1 ¶ 16; 57 ¶ 16. He noted that Thompson had a rash and had vomited one (1) time. Dkt. Nos. 44–1 ¶ 16; 55–11, at 167; 57 ¶ 16. He also noted that Thompson complained of nausea and of her throat and chest “tightening up.” Dkt. Nos. 44–1 ¶ 16; 57 ¶ 16.

Nurse Orr called Dr. Gunderson and informed him of Thompson's condition. Dkt. Nos. 44–1 ¶ 17; 57 ¶ 17. Dr. Gunderson prescribed multiple drugs, including Benadryl, Prednisone, and Cimetidine. Dkt. No. 55–11, at 168–69. Dr. Gunderson had Nurse Orr place Thompson on the sick call list so that Thompson would be seen by Dr. Gunderson the following day. Dkt. Nos. 44–1 ¶ 19; 57 ¶ 19.

Sometime Monday, Inmate Dinah Smith began telling officers that she believed that Thompson was withdrawing from drugs. Dkt. No. 55–5, at 39. Inmate Smith relayed this concern to Officer Carnette and Nurse Orr at 6:00 p.m.10See id.; Dkt. ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
28 cases
  • Kruse v. Byrne
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Alabama
    • December 3, 2013
    ...officials of an inmate's dangerous psychiatric state can constitute deliberate indifference."). 21. Cf. Keele v. Glynn Cnty., Ga., 938 F. Supp. 2d 1270, 1295 (S.D. Ga. 2013) (Wood, C.J.) ("Thompson did not have an untreated, objectively serious medical need until she developed rashes on Mon......
  • Storey v. TransformHealthRX, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Georgia
    • August 31, 2022
    ...towards Cartee. To show actual malice, a plaintiff must show that a defendant acted with "a deliberate intention to do wrong." Keele, 938 F.Supp.2d at 1309 (quoting Peterson v. Baker, 504 F.3d 1331, (11th Cir. 2007)). As discussed throughout this order, Plaintiff has not shown that any ECSO......
  • Storey v. TransformHealthRX, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Georgia
    • August 31, 2022
    ...towards Cartee. To show actual malice, a plaintiff must show that a defendant acted with "a deliberate intention to do wrong." Keele, 938 F.Supp.2d at 1309 (quoting Peterson v. Baker, 504 F.3d 1331, (11th Cir. 2007)). As discussed throughout this order, Plaintiff has not shown that any ECSO......
  • Storey v. Effingham Cnty.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Georgia
    • January 31, 2022
    ...with malice. To show actual malice, a plaintiff needs to show that a defendant acted with "a deliberate intention to do wrong." Keele, 938 F.Supp.2d at 1309 (quoting v. Baker, 504 F.3d 1331, 1339 (11th Cir. 2007)). As discussed throughout this order, Plaintiff has not shown that Sheriff McD......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT