Martin v. Somerset Cnty.
| Decision Date | 06 September 2022 |
| Docket Number | 1:21-cv-00199-NT |
| Parties | YVONNE MARTIN, Personal Representative of the ESTATE OF PAUL MCDONALD, Plaintiff, v. SOMERSET COUNTY, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Maine |
YVONNE MARTIN, Personal Representative of the ESTATE OF PAUL MCDONALD, Plaintiff,
v.
SOMERSET COUNTY, et al., Defendants.
No. 1:21-cv-00199-NT
United States District Court, D. Maine
September 6, 2022
ORDER ON DEFENDANTS MEDPRO ASSOCIATES AND CHERYL NEEDHAM'S PARTIAL MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT
Nancy Torresen United States District Judge
Before me is Defendants MedPro Associates and Cheryl Needham's motion to dismiss Count II of Plaintiff Yvonne Martin's complaint (ECF No. 27). For the following reasons, the motion is GRANTED.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND[1]
This suit was brought by Yvonne Martin as personal representative of the estate of her son, Paul McDonald. Compl. ¶ 2 (ECF No. 1). On July 2, 2015, Mr.
McDonald was arrested for a violation of probation after being found with drug paraphernalia. Compl. ¶ 18. Because he was “not extremely responsive” when he was encountered by law enforcement, Mr. McDonald was transported by ambulance to Reddington Fairview Hospital. Compl. ¶ 19. Mr. McDonald was discharged from the hospital later that day and cleared medically for jail, but he was experiencing physical symptoms from opiate withdrawal and his discharge paperwork indicated that he needed crisis and counseling services. Compl. ¶¶ 20-22.
That same day, July 2, 2015, Mr. McDonald was booked into Somerset County Jail. Compl. ¶ 23. A search of Mr. McDonald's name in a state database as a part of the booking process yielded information that Mr. McDonald had made past threats of suicide and had previously attempted suicide. Compl. ¶¶ 24-25. As a result of these findings, Mr. McDonald was classified as at a high risk for suicide and referred by Somerset County Jail Staff for a risk assessment. Compl. ¶¶ 26, 28.
On July 6, 2015, Defendant Cheryl Needham, a trained social worker and mental health technician, conducted the risk assessment. Compl. ¶ 39; Defs.' MedPro Associates & Cheryl Needham's Mot. to Dismiss Pl.'s Compl. (“MTD”) Exs. A, B (ECF Nos. 27-1 & 27-2). Ms. Needham was an employee of Defendant MedPro Associates (“MedPro”), a company that was contracted by Somerset County Jail to provide medical services to inmates. Compl. ¶¶ 14-15. Ms. Needham confirmed that Mr. McDonald had made thirteen past suicide attempts, including an attempt via
hanging, and that he had previously engaged in outpatient therapy, inpatient programs, crisis placements, and hospitalizations as a result of his mental health struggles. Compl. ¶¶ 29, 31; MTD Ex. A, at 2, 5 (ECF No. 27-1). During the assessment, Mr. McDonald reported feeling “Sad/Depressed,” “Anxious,” “Angry/Irritable,” and told Ms. Needham that he was having feelings of “worthlessness/hopelessness.” Compl. ¶ 30; MTD Ex. A, at 3. In addition, he rated himself a ten for suicide risk on a scale of one to ten. Compl. ¶ 33; MTD Ex. A, at 6. Ms. Needham concluded that Mr. McDonald was exhibiting numerous suicide risk factors, including previous attempts, worthlessness, psychosis/thought disorder, substance abuse, lack of supports, hopelessness, and impulsivity. Compl. ¶ 32; MTD Ex. A, at 5. Mr. McDonald was listed as emergent for 24 to 48 hours and it was recommended that he be kept on “special management observation.” Compl. ¶ 34; MTD Ex. A, at 6. He was placed in a smock for safety and a slow transition was recommended. Compl. ¶¶ 35-36; MTD Ex. A, at 7.
The following day, on July 7, Ms. Needham, met with Mr. McDonald to continue the risk assessment. Compl. ¶¶ 37, 39. In her report, Ms. Needham wrote that Mr. McDonald “reported feeling much better and stated his suicide risk was low.” MTD Ex. B, at 1. Ms. Needham recommended that Mr. McDonald be allowed regular clothing. MTD Ex. B, at 1. The next day, July 8, 2015, at another risk assessment continuation, Ms. Needham reported that Mr. McDonald “was a completely different person . . . [,] was smiling and laughing . . . [, and] stated that he was feeling much better.” MTD Ex. C, at 1 (ECF No. 27-3). In a summary of the assessment, Ms.
Needham wrote that Mr. McDonald had made no threats of harm and that he was “cleared by mental health . . . and all restrictions were lifted.” Compl. ¶ 40; MTD Ex. C, at 1. She also recommended no further follow up unless Mr. McDonald requested it. Compl. ¶ 41; MTD Ex. C, at 1.
The very next afternoon, on July 9, 2015, Mr. McDonald was alone in his cell. Compl. ¶ 49. A corrections officer at the jail was supposed to have conducted security rounds of Mr. McDonald's area, but, for some unknown reason, he failed to do so. Compl. ¶ 48. As a result, Mr. McDonald had approximately ten minutes where he was unobserved prior to a “med pass”-what I assume to be a medical check-in. Compl. ¶ 50. When officers did finally arrive to check on Mr. McDonald, he was unresponsive, with a brown sheet tied tightly around his neck that was connected to a window beam. Compl. ¶¶ 54, 56, 58. The officers present cut the sheet from Mr. McDonald's neck, commenced CPR, and requested emergency medical care for Mr. McDonald. Compl. ¶¶ 58-60. Emergency medical personnel arrived a few minutes later, at which point Mr. McDonald was transferred to the hospital. Compl. ¶¶ 61, 70, 73, 74, 75. Mr. McDonald's condition continued to decline, and he died on July 16, 2015. Compl. ¶¶ 78, 80, 82.
Mr. McDonald was not the first inmate at Somerset County Jail to die while in custody. On May 28, 2014, an inmate named Joseph Daost “passed away as a result of untreated pulmonary hemorrhage.” Compl. ¶¶ 83, 87. The Plaintiff alleges that Mr. Daost “was not provided adequate mental health treatment or medical care.” Compl. ¶ 86.
On July 16, 2021, the six-year anniversary of her son's death, Ms. Martin filed a lawsuit against Somerset County, various jail officials, MedPro, and MedPro employee Cheryl Needham. As is relevant here, Count II of the Complaint asserts constitutional claims against MedPro and Ms. Needham pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Compl. ¶¶ 100-105. Now, MedPro and Ms. Needham move to dismiss Count II-the claims against them-arguing that the Plaintiff's claims are untimely and that her Complaint fails to state a plausible claim for relief. Defs.' MedPro Associates & Cheryl Needham's Mot. to Dismiss Pl.'s Compl. (“MTD”) 5-6 (ECF No. 27).
LEGAL STANDARD
The Defendants' motion to dismiss invokes Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). When evaluating a motion to dismiss, I take “as true all well-pleaded facts alleged in the complaint and draw all reasonable inferences therefrom in the pleader's favor.” Alston v. Spiegel, 988 F.3d 564, 571 (1st Cir. 2021) (quoting Santiago v. Puerto Rico, 655 F.3d 61, 72 (1st Cir. 2011)). “[A] complaint will survive a motion to dismiss when it alleges ‘enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.' ” Id. (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim is “plausible” if the facts alleged give rise to a reasonable inference of liability. Id. “Plausible” means “more than merely possible.” Germanowski v. Harris, 854 F.3d 68, 71 (1st Cir. 2017) (quoting Schatz v. Republican State Leadership Comm., 669 F.3d 50, 55 (1st Cir. 2012)).
DISCUSSION
At the outset of their motion, the Defendants argue that the claims against them should be dismissed for lack of timeliness. MTD 6. The parties agree that claims under 42 U.S.C....
To continue reading
Request your trial