May v. Univ. Health Sys. of E. N.C.

• Decision Date: 10 December 2021
• Docket Number: 4:21-CV-00014-D
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of North Carolina
• Parties: NINA MAY, Plaintiff, v. UNIVERSITY HEALTH SYSTEMS OF EASTERN CAROLINA, INC. d/b/a VIDANT HEALTH, et al. Defendants.

NINA MAY, Plaintiff, v. UNIVERSITY HEALTH SYSTEMS OF EASTERN CAROLINA, INC. d/b/a VIDANT HEALTH, et al. Defendants.

No. 4:21-CV-00014-D

United States District Court, E.D. North Carolina, Eastern Division

December 10, 2021

ORDER

JAMES C. DEVER, United States District Judge.

On February 1, 2021, Nina May (“May” or “plaintiff”) filed an amended complaint against University Health Systems of Eastern Carolina, doing business as Vidant Health (“Vidant Health”), Pitt County Memorial Hospital, Inc., doing business as Vidant Medical Center (“Vidant Medical”), Vidant Company Police Department (“Vidant PD”), ^[1] the City of Greenville, the Greenville Police Department (“Greenville PD”), and John and Jane Doe police officers (collectively, “defendants”) [D.E. 7]. May alleges numerous claims: interference with civil rights excessive force, and municipal liability under 42 U.S.C § 1983 (counts one, two, and four), violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (count three), violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C §§ 12131 et seq, (counts five and six) and state law claims for battery, false imprisonment, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, and negligence (counts seven through ten). See Id. ¶¶ 41-130.^[2] Defendants filed motions to dismiss and memoranda in support [D.E. 20-25, 32-33]. May responded in opposition [D.E.26-28, 34], and defendants replied [D.E. 36-38]. As explained below, the court grants defendants' motions to dismiss.

I.

May is a legal resident of the United States who at all relevant times was a resident of Pitt County, North Carolina. See Am. Compl. [D.E. 7] ¶ 5. Vidant Medical and Vidant Health are related nonprofit entities organized under North Carolina law with a principal place of business in Greenville, North Carolina. See id. ¶ 6. Vidant Medical is a hospital and Vidant Health is a nonprofit entity that supports Vidant Medical's services. See [D.E. 23] 5. Vidant Medical and Vidant Health were originally public entities. In 1998, the Pitt County Board of Commissioners converted them from public entities into private nonprofit institutions. See [D.E. 21-1, 23-2]. Vidant PD is a private, nongovernmental law enforcement agency that provides a suite of law enforcement services for Vidant Medical. See Am. Compl. ¶ 7; City of Greenville Ex. B [D.E. 322].^[3]

The City of Greenville is a city organized under North Carolina law. See Am. Compl. ¶ 8. Greenville PD is a governmental law enforcement agency in the City of Greenville. See id. ¶ 9. May alleges, and defendants dispute, that Vidant PD is “affiliated with or an extension of Greenville PD” -) and thus operates “under the auspices of the City of Greenville.” See id. ¶¶ 9, 68; but see [D.E. 33] 5-6. The John and Jane Doe police officers are law enforcement officers in the Vidant PD and Greenville PD that May alleges participated in the events giving rise to her claims. See Am. Compl. ¶10.

On January 31, 2018, May went to Vidant Medical Center seeking treatment for stroke-like symptoms, including blurred vision. See id. ¶ 11. A doctor examined May, concluded she had not had a stroke, and admitted her to stay overnight for testing. See id. ¶ 12. Doctors also determined May was not a suicide risk. See id. ¶¶ 14-15. Nonetheless, doctors put May on a suicide watch and held her against her will at Vidant Medical. See Id. ¶ 17. May borrowed a phone from the hospital and called her daughter and 911 for help, and May told her son's girlfriend on the phone that she was being unlawfully detained. See id. ¶ 18. May alleges that Vidant Medical “intercepted” the phone calls to prevent her from getting help, and Greenville PD did not respond to her 911 call. Id. ¶¶ 19-20. Vidant Medical personnel then put May in a medical room and had Vidant PD officers guard the room. See id. ¶¶ 21-22. May alleges these Vidant PD officers attacked her, including punching herintheface. See id. ¶ 23. The attack left May bruised over her whole body and caused permanent damage to several of her teeth. See id. ¶¶ 23, 39. May claims that video footage allegedly shows Vidant PD officers standing around May's hospital room and laughing. See id. ¶ 26.^[4]

Soon after the alleged attack, anurse gave May a shot that “incapacitated her.” Id. ¶¶ 29-30, 32. Once the injection took effect, May alleges that Vidant PD officers lifted her onto a gurney and other personnel took her to the psychiatric ward. See id. ¶¶ 27, 33-34. After two days at Vidant Medical, Vidant personnel forced May to sign and back date a form for voluntary commitment before they would release her. See id. ¶ 35. May apparently has tried to request information about her stay at Vidant Medical Center, but the hospital has refused to provide any information. See Id. ¶36.

On January 28, 2021, May sued the defendants, alleging claims arising from her experience at Vidant Medical Center. Defendants filed motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. May opposes the motions.

II

A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) tests the complaint's legal and factual sufficiency. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677-80 (2009); Bell Atl. Corp, v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 55463 (2007); Coleman v. Md. Court of Appeals, 626 F.3d 187, 190 (4th Cir. 2010), affd, 566 U.S. 30 (2012); Giarratano v. Johnson, 521 F.3d 298, 302 (4th Cir. 2008). To withstand a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a pleading “must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quotation omitted); see Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570; Giarratano, 521 F.3d at 302. In considering the motion, the court must construe the facts and reasonable inferences “in the light most favorable to [the nonmoving party].” Massey v, Ojaniit, 759 F.3d 343, 352 (4th Cir. 2014) (quotation omitted); see Clatterbuck v. City of Charlottesville. 708 F.3d549, 557 (4th Cir. 2013), abrogated on other grounds by Reed v. Town of Gilbert, 576 U.S. 155 (2015). A court need not accept as true a complaint's legal conclusions, “unwarranted inferences, unreasonable conclusions, or arguments.” Giarratano, 521 F.3d at 302 (quotation omitted); see Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79. Rather, aparty's factual allegations must “nudge[ ] [its] claims, ” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570, beyond the realm of “mere possibility” into “plausibility.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79.

When evaluating a motion to dismiss, a court considers the pleadings and any materials “attached or incorporated into the complaint.” E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Kolon Indus., Inc., 637 F.3d 435.448 (4th Cir. 2011); see Fed. R Civ. P. 10(c); Goines v. Valley Cmty. Servs. Bd., 822 F.3d 159, 166 (4th Cir. 2016); Thompson v. Greene, 427 F.3d 263, 268 (4th Cir. 2005). A court may also consider a document submitted by a moving party if it is “integral to the complaint and there is no dispute about the document's authenticity” without converting the motion into one for summary judgment. Goines, 822 F.3d at 166. Additionally, a court may takejudicial notice of public records. See, e.g., Fed.R.Evid. 201; Tellabs, Inc, v. Makor Issues & Rts., Ltd., 551 U.S. 308, 322 (2007); Philips v. Pitt Cnty. Mem'l Hosp., 572 F.3d 176, 180 (4th Cir. 2009).

This court has federal question jurisdiction over May's section 1983, section 1981, and ADA claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. May alleges her state law claims under this court's supplemental jurisdiction. A district court has “supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that are so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article HI of the United States Constitution.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367, “a federal court has jurisdiction over an entire action, including state-law claims, whenever the federal-law claims and state-law claims in the case derive from a common nucleus of operative fact and are such that a plaintiff would ordinarily be expected to try them all in one judicial proceeding.” Camegie-Melon Univ, v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 349 (1988) (cleaned up); see United Mine Workers of Am. v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 725 (1966).

A district court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction... if... the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c); see Carnegie-Mellon Univ., 484 U.S. at 350 n.7; Gibbs, 383 U.S. at 726-27; ESAB Grp., Inc, v. Zurich Ins. PLC, 685 F.3d 376, 394 (4th Cir. 2012); Shanaghan v. Cahill, 58 F.3d 106, 110 (4th Cir. 1995). Inmaking its decision, a court may consider “convenience and fairness to the parties, the existence of any J underlying issues of federal policy, comity, and considerations of judicial economy.” Shanaghan. 58 F.3d at 110; see Carnegie Mellon Univ., 484 U.S. at 350 n.7; Gibbs, 383 U.S. at 726-27; Crosby v. City of Gastonia, 635 F.3d 634, 644 n.l 1 (4th Cir. 2011). A court also may consider the time investment of the court and parties and “the existence of some significant issue of state law best resolved in state court.” Shanaghan. 58 F.3d at 112; see McCullough v. Branch Banking & Tr. Co., 844 F.Supp. 258, 260-62 (E.D. N.C. 1993), affd, 35 F.3d 127 (4th Cir. 1994); see also Gunsay v. Mozayeni, 695 Fed.Appx. 696, 703-04 (4th Cir. 2017) (per curiam) (unpublished).

III.

Defendants argue that May's federal law claims fail under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Essentially, defendants contend: (1) May fails to state a section 1983 claim against Vidant Health and Vidant PD because she fails to allege that the Vidant PD officers acted pursuant to an official policy or custom; (2) May fails to plausibly allege an impaired contractual relationship or, in the alternative, the requisite state action under ...