Layman v. Alexander

Decision Date21 November 2003
Docket NumberNo. 1:03CV6-C.,1:03CV6-C.
Citation294 F.Supp.2d 784
CourtU.S. District Court — Western District of North Carolina
PartiesVirginia LAYMAN, as General Guardian for Ricky C. Layman, Plaintiff; v. Richard T. ALEXANDER, in his Individual and Official Capacity as Sheriff of Haywood County, Jeffery L. Haynes, Individually and in his official capacity as an Employee of the Sheriff of Haywood County, Jeremy K. Holland, Individually and in his official capacity as an Employee of the Sheriff of Haywood County, Cheryl B. Trull, Individually and in her official capacity as an Employee of Haywood County, William J. Chambers, Individually and in his official capacity as an Employee of the Sheriff of Haywood County, Redland Insurance Company, Surety for Sheriff Richard T. Alexander, Defendants.

Joseph P. McGuire, Mary E. Euler, McGuire, Wood & Bissette, P.A., Asheville, NC, for plaintiff.

Sean F. Perrin, Scott D. MacLatchie, Womble, Carlyle, Sandridge & Rice, Charlotte, NC, Killian Kersten, Killian, Kersten, Patton & Kirkpatrick, P.A., Waynesville, NC, Leon M. Killian, III, Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough, LLP, Raleigh, NC, Jeffrey W. Norris, Jeffrey W. Norris & Associates, PLLC, Waynesville, NC, for defendants.

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER

COGBURN, United States Magistrate Judge.

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. Having considered the pleadings, the parties' briefs, the arguments of counsel, and the applicable law, the undersigned will grant in part and deny in part Defendants' motion.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

This action was filed on January 3, 2003 by Plaintiff Virginia Layman, as guardian of Ricky C. Layman, against Richard T. Alexander, in his individual and official capacities as Sheriff of Haywood County, North Carolina; Jeffery L. Haynes, Jeremy K. Holland, Cheryl B. Trull, and William J. Chambers, in their individual and official capacities as employees of the Sheriff of Haywood County; and Redland Insurance Company, surety for Sheriff Alexander.1 In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleged generally that Defendants Alexander, Haynes, Holland, Trull, and Chambers failed to obtain necessary medical care and acted with deliberate indifference to the serious medical needs of Plaintiff's ward, Ricky C. Layman, when Ricky was detained in the Haywood County Jail on February 12, 2000. Plaintiff subsequently amended her complaint twice, and Defendants have moved to dismiss her Second Amended Complaint.

In the Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that Ricky was handcuffed and detained by Sheriff's Deputy Fowler in the early morning hours of February 12, 2000 at the Springhouse Saloon in Maggie Valley, North Carolina. (Compl.2 ¶¶ 14-15). Plaintiff alleges that Deputy Fowler transported Ricky to the Haywood County Jail and took him to the third floor for booking. (Id. ¶¶ 15-17). According to Plaintiff's complaint, Defendants Trull and Holland, who were jailers on duty at the jail, began to search Ricky's rear pockets, while Deputy Fowler searched his front pockets. (Id. ¶ 18). Plaintiff alleges that a struggle ensued between Ricky, who was still handcuffed, and Deputy Fowler and that Deputy Fowler grabbed Ricky and threw him to the floor. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that, unable to brace himself, Ricky struck his head on a steel door or an object protruding from a steel door in the booking area during his fall. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges further that Ricky lay unconscious for one to two minutes, that there was blood on the floor near the steel door, and that there was blood coming from behind Ricky's left ear. (Id. ¶ 19). According to the complaint, Defendant Holland then removed Ricky's handcuffs and rolled him over to open his airway, while Lieutenant Haynes called for Emergency Medical Technicians ("EMTs") to respond to the jail booking area. (Id. at 19-20).

Plaintiff alleges that after approximately two minutes of unconsciousness, Ricky awoke, asked where he was, and why he was being arrested. (Compl. ¶ 21). Approximately four or five minutes after Ricky struck his head, the EMTs arrived, observed a laceration behind Ricky's left ear, and contacted Dr. Michael Brown at the Haywood Regional Medical Center Emergency Room. (Id. ¶ 22). According to the complaint, Dr. Brown advised the EMTs that it was not necessary to transport Ricky to the hospital but that he should be watched closely for vomiting or strange behavior and that he should be brought to the hospital if any of those occurred. (Id.)

Plaintiff alleges that at approximately 3:00 a.m., Ricky was placed in an isolation cell and that Lieutenant Haynes ordered Defendant Holland to check on him every five to ten minutes and to wake him up if he fell asleep. (Compl. ¶ 23). According to Plaintiff, at 4:30 a.m., Defendant Holland informed Defendant Trull that Ricky was "acting crazy" and "saying things that made no sense." (Id. ¶ 24). Defendant Holland then contacted Dr. Brown, who ordered, at 4:37 a.m., that Ricky be transported to the emergency room at the hospital. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that when Defendant Holland returned to Ricky's cell, he found him sleeping and that he negligently and/or with deliberate indifference to Ricky's serious medical condition, ignored Dr. Brown's order and left Ricky apparently asleep in his cell. (Id. ¶ 25). Plaintiff alleges further that Defendant Trull also knew or reasonably should have known of Dr. Brown's order, which was set forth plainly in the jail logs, but failed to take any steps to transport Ricky to the hospital or obtain medical treatment for him. (Id.)

Plaintiff alleges that at 5:45 a.m., Defendant Holland was relieved by Defendant Chambers, who knew or should have known of Dr. Brown's order to take Ricky to the hospital, which order was stated plainly in the jail logs, and that he also failed to obtain medical treatment for Ricky. (Compl. ¶ 26). Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Chambers checked on Ricky eighteen times between 5:45 a.m. and 11:06 a.m., each time noting in the jail log that Ricky was "resting," and that at 11:17 a.m., Defendant Chambers asked Virginia McNair, a nurse who was at the jail to check on a female inmate, to check on Ricky in his cell. (Compl. ¶¶ 27-28). According to the complaint, Defendant Chambers and Ms. McNair attempted to rouse Ricky between 11:17 a.m. and 11:30 a.m., and at approximately 11:32 a.m., Ms. McNair noted that Ricky's face had turned blue and that he had stopped breathing. (Id. ¶¶ 28-29). Ms. McNair then began administering cardio-pulmonary resuscitation, which succeeded in enabling Ricky to breathe on his own, and Ricky's blood pressure returned to normal. (Id. ¶ 29). Ricky did not regain consciousness, however and at approximately 11:38 a.m., EMTs transported Ricky to the hospital emergency room, where they arrived at 12:14 p.m. (Id. ¶¶ 29-30). Plaintiff alleges that Ricky was shortly thereafter transported to Mission St. Joseph's Hospital in Asheville, North Carolina, where he underwent surgery to remove a blood clot from his brain located behind his left ear. (Compl. ¶ 31). According to Plaintiff, Ricky was in a coma for two weeks and sustained severe and permanent brain injury. (Id. ¶ 32).

Plaintiff alleges in her complaint that between the time Dr. Brown ordered Defendant Holland to take Ricky to the hospital until Ricky was transported there approximately seven hours later, Defendants engaged in conduct that was willful, wanton, and criminally negligent, and that their conduct was "so blatantly inappropriate as to evidence intentional maltreatment." (Compl. ¶ 33). Plaintiff alleges further, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, that Defendants were deliberately indifferent to Ricky's serious medical needs in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and that their conduct was directly responsible for the severe brain damage suffered by Ricky. (Id. ¶¶ 33-35). Plaintiff alleges, also, that Sheriff Alexander and Lieutenant Haynes were responsible for supervising and training jailers and that they failed properly to train Defendants Holland, Chambers, and Trull to provide necessary medical care to Ricky and similarly situated detainees in the jail, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. (Id. ¶ 37). Finally, with respect to her Fourteenth Amendment claim, Plaintiff alleges that Sheriff Alexander failed to establish and implement proper policies and procedures for monitoring head-injured and unconscious inmates in violation of Ricky's Fourteenth Amendment right to receive prompt and adequate medical care. (Id. ¶ 38).

As her second cause of action, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants are liable for their negligent failure to obtain medical care for Ricky. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that Sheriff Alexander owed a duty to inmates at the jail, including Ricky, to exercise due care for their safety and to establish proper policies and procedures to provide medical supervision and emergency medical care and that Defendants also owed a special duty to Ricky based on their knowledge of his head injury, strange behavior, and direction from Dr. Brown. (Compl. ¶¶ 40-41). Plaintiff alleges that Sheriff Alexander violated his duty to establish policies and procedures sufficient to provide for medical supervision and emergency medical care and that all of the Defendants violated their special duty to Ricky by failing to exercise due care for his safety, failing to provide medical supervision and emergency medical care, and failing to transport him to the hospital when directed to do so. (Id. ¶¶ 42-43). Finally, in her second cause of action, Plaintiff alleges that as a proximate result of the Defendants' actions, Ricky suffered damages. (Id. ¶ 44).

Plaintiff asserts her third cause of action against Sheriff Alexander for negligent supervision of his agents and employees. In particular, Plaintiff alleges that Sheriff...

To continue reading

Request your trial
18 cases
  • Stockton v. Wake Cnty.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of North Carolina
    • March 24, 2016
    ...as imports a thoughtless disregard of consequences, or a heedless indifference to the safety and rights of others.” Layman v. Alexander, 294 F.Supp.2d 784, 796 (W.D.N.C.2003) (quoting Letchworth v. Gay, 874 F.Supp. 107, 109 (E.D.N.C.1995) ). “Thus, while mere negligence is not sufficient to......
  • Copper ex rel. Copper v. Denlinger
    • United States
    • North Carolina Court of Appeals
    • October 21, 2008
    ...supervise [the teacher], Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim for supervisory liability under § 1983."); Layman v. Alexander, 294 F.Supp.2d 784, 794 (W.D.N.C.2003) (concluding dismissal of "supervisor liability" claim was proper when "[t]here are no allegations . . . from which the Court......
  • Osborne by and through Powell v. Yadkin Valley Economic Development District, Incorporated
    • United States
    • North Carolina Court of Appeals
    • September 7, 2021
    ...‘deliberate indifference’ to the rights of citizens." Durham Cnty. Bd. of Educ. , 2019 WL 331143, at *8 (quoting Layman v. Alexander , 294 F. Supp. 2d 784, 793 (W.D.N.C. 2003) ); see also City of Canton , 489 U.S. at 389, 109 S. Ct. at 1204, 103 L. Ed. 2d at 429 (holding that respondent's c......
  • Armstrong v. City of Greensboro
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of North Carolina
    • June 6, 2016
    ...him to liability where the failure to train reflects a ‘deliberate indifference’ to the rights of citizens." Layman v. Alexander, 294 F.Supp.2d 784, 793–94 (W.D.N.C.2003) (citations omitted). To establish the first element of actual or constructive knowledge, "a plaintiff must show the foll......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 books & journal articles
  • Layman v. Alexander.
    • United States
    • Corrections Caselaw Quarterly No. 32, November 2004
    • November 1, 2004
    ...District Court RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR SUPERIVISORY LIABILITY Layman v. Alexander, 294 F.Supp.2d 784 (W.D.N.C. 2003). The guardian of an arrestee brought a civil rights action alleging violation of the arrestee's Fourteenth Amendment rights. The district court dismissed the case in part, and de......
  • Layman v. Alexander.
    • United States
    • Corrections Caselaw Quarterly No. 32, November 2004
    • November 1, 2004
    ...District Court DELAY IN CARE FAILURE TO PROVIDE CARE Layman v. Alexander, 294 F.Supp.2d 784 (W.D.N.C. 2003). The guardian of an arrestee brought a civil rights action alleging violation of the arrestee's Fourteenth Amendment rights. The district court dismissed the case in part, and denied ......
  • Layman v. Alexander.
    • United States
    • Corrections Caselaw Quarterly No. 32, November 2004
    • November 1, 2004
    ...District Court MEDICAL CARE Layman v. Alexander, 294 F.Supp.2d 784 (W.D.N.C. 2003). The guardian of an arrestee brought a civil rights action alleging violation of the arrestee's Fourteenth Amendment rights. The district court dismissed the case in part, and denied dismissal in part. The di......

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