McDaniel v. Yearwood

• Decision Date: 15 February 2012
• Docket Number: CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:11-CV-00165-RWS
• Parties: CHRISTOPHER JORDAN McDANIEL, Plaintiff, v. DANIEL YEARWOOD, JR., et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Georgia

CHRISTOPHER JORDAN McDANIEL, Plaintiff,

v.DANIEL YEARWOOD, JR., et al., Defendants.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:11-CV-00165-RWS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA GAINESVILLE DIVISION

Dated: February 15, 2012

ORDER

This case comes before the Court on Defendants Yearwood and Barrow County, Georgia's ("Barrow County") Motion to Dismiss Complaint [4], Defendant Smith's Motion to Dismiss Complaint [6], Defendant Harris's Motion to Dismiss Complaint [8]; Defendant Barrow County's Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint [17], Defendant Smith's Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint [18], Defendant Harris's Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint [19]; Defendants Smith, Arnold, Hunnicutt, Harris, and Barrow County's Motion to Dismiss or in the Alternative Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint [27]; and, finally, Plaintiff's Motion to Allow Plaintiff to Amend His Complaint If This Court Find [sic] that Defendants'Motions to Dismiss Have Any Merit ("Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend") [31]. After reviewing the Record in this case, the Court enters the following Order.

Background¹

This case arises out of an arrest and beating that Plaintiff allegedly sustained at the hands of two deputies of the Barrow County Sheriff's Office (BCSO). According to the allegations of the Amended Complaint, on June 7, 2009, at or about 1:00 a.m., Plaintiff was involved in a disturbance in Winder, Georgia, which ultimately led to the arrival of Defendants Deputy Sheriff Bradley Arnold ("Deputy Arnold") and Deputy Sheriff Shayne Hunnicutt ("Deputy Hunnicutt") of the BCSO. (Dkt. No. [10] ¶¶ 11-12, 20-25.) Specifically, Plaintiff, upset over the recent death of his grandfather and break-up with his girlfriend, fled his residence and the company of his friends and ran onto the property of the McDaniel Concrete Company. (Id. ¶¶ 20-21.) Plaintiff's friends followed and, after catching up with him, wrestled Plaintiff to the ground in an attempt to make him calm down. (Id. ¶ 22.) It appears fromthe Amended Complaint that at this point, Plaintiff was back on his own property. Shortly thereafter, Plaintiff's parents arrived and were able to calm him down. (Id. ¶ 23-24.)

A few minutes after Plaintiff had calmed down, Deputies Arnold and Hunnicutt arrived on the scene in a marked BCSO vehicle, with no lights flashing or siren blaring. (Id. ¶ 25.) The deputies drove their vehicle onto Plaintiff's lawn and parked a few feet away from where Plaintiff was lying on the ground. (Id. ¶ 26.) Deputy Arnold allegedly jumped out of his car, ran toward Plaintiff, and pushed Plaintiff's mother to the ground. (Id. ¶ 27.) Deputy Hunnicutt similarly pushed Plaintiff's father away from Plaintiff, nearly knocking him to the ground. (Id.) Deputy Hunnicutt then got on the ground next to Plaintiff and pinned Plaintiff to the ground. (Id. ¶ 28.) Thereafter, without warning or provocation, Deputy Arnold punched Plaintiff in the cheek just below Plaintiff's left eye. (Id. ¶ 30.) Deputy Arnold then knelt down next to Plaintiff and punched him again in the face two more times, smashing his left eye and causing it to immediately swell and clot. (Id. ¶¶ 31-32.)

Following this alleged attack, Defendant Anthony Harris ("Defendant Harris"), then a Captain at the BCSO, arrived on the scene in his marked BCSOvehicle. (Id. ¶¶ 10, 34.) Defendant Harris got out of his vehicle, withdrew his taser gun, and ordered everyone away from Plaintiff. (Id. ¶ 37.) Without ascertaining what had transpired, Defendant Harris loudly threatened to taser Plaintiff if he did not get back down on the ground and threatened to taser anyone near Plaintiff who did not move away. (Id. ¶ 38.) Plaintiff returned to a lying-down position on the ground and was then handcuffed and "dragged to and shoved" into the back of Deputy Arnold's vehicle. (Id. ¶ 42.) In response to Plaintiff's mother's questions, Defendant Harris said Plaintiff would be taken to a hospital. (Id. ¶ 43.)

Plaintiff was driven to the back parking lot of the hospital. (Id. ¶ 45.) On the orders of Defendant Barrow County Sheriff Judson K. Smith ("Sheriff Smith"), who had arrived on the scene, Plaintiff remained in the back parking lot for nearly two hours and was not permitted to be examined by hospital staff. (Id. ¶¶ 5, 45.) At some point, the deputies complained that Plaintiff was bleeding all over the vehicle and that the vehicle would have to be cleaned. (Id. ¶ 57.) Despite the concerns of two on-duty EMTs, Plaintiff, and Plaintiff's father, Sheriff Smith refused to allow Plaintiff to be treated; on the contrary, Sheriff Smith "instructed Deputy Arnold to sign the 'Medical Refusal' form as'guardian' for [Plaintiff]." (Id. ¶ 46.) Despite his decision not to have Plaintiff treated, Sheriff Smith told Plaintiff and Plaintiff's father, in the presence of Defendant Harris, "By law, I am supposed to take [McDaniel] in [the Hospital] and handcuffed to a hospital bed and have one of my deputies watch him all night but I'm not, I'm taking him to Jail." (Id. ¶ 47 (alterations in original).)

Plaintiff was thereafter taken to jail where he was booked and processed. (Id. ¶ 48.) At the jail, a deputy took pictures of Plaintiff's face and "those around" laughed about the picture and exchanged "high fives." (Id. ¶ 58.) Plaintiff was charged with obstruction of an officer, disorderly conduct, and public drunkenness. (Id. ¶ 51.) An order of nolle prosequi was later entered as to these charges in the Superior Court of Barrow County. (Id. ¶ 51 n.14.)

Plaintiff alleges the following injuries as a result of the alleged beating:

The savage beating . . . [caused] . . . [Plaintiff's] facial bones under his left eye to be shattered, his orbital socket to be displaced, his left eye to be nearly dislodged and his brain to be bruised and swollen; [and that] [Plaintiff] also suffered injuries to his shoulders, neck and back and he is still suffering with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and mental and emotional anguish and loss of ability to concentrate and much of his agility and dexterity has been compromised and the prognosis for regaining same is poor, at best.

(Id. ¶ 53.) Furthermore, Plaintiff alleges that as a result of these injuries,

[Plaintiff] has suffered, in part, loss of full functioning of his left eye, loss of teeth, loss of feeling in the left side of his face, loss of ability to concentrate, loss of dexterity and agility, loss of hearing on left side, loss of ability to earn a living, loss of mental processing, loss of the ability to get a good night's sleep, nightmares and flash backs [sic] and loss of the quality of his life in general.

(Id. ¶ 61.)

Based on the foregoing factual allegations, Plaintiff brings the Amended Complaint against Defendants Deputies Arnold and Hunnicutt, Defendant Harris, Sheriff Smith, and Barrow County, alleging various violations of federal and state law. Currently before the Court are the motions to dismiss of Defendants Barrow County, Sheriff Smith, and Defendant Harris. With regard to Plaintiff's federal law claims, Plaintiff alleges that all three moving Defendants are liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violating Plaintiff's rights under the Fourth and Eighth Amendments of the United States Constitution. Specifically, Plaintiff raises claims for unreasonable seizure and malicious prosecution in violation of the Fourth Amendment (Counts IX and XII),² andfor denial of medical treatment under the Eighth Amendment (Count IX).

Plaintiff's state law claims against the moving Defendants are as follows: False Imprisonment and Kidnapping (all three Defendants) (Count I); Aggravated Battery, Aggravated Assault, and Assault and Battery (all three Defendants) (Count II); "GTCA, Negligence per se, Negligence and Gross Negligence " (Defendants Smith and Harris) (Count III); Gross Negligence (all three Defendants) (Count IV); Negligent Hiring, Retention, Training and/or Supervision and Entrustment (Defendants Barrow County and Smith) (Count V); Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (all three Defendants) (Count VII); and, finally, a claim under the Georgia Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations ("RICO") Act, O.C.G.A. § 16-14-1, et seq (all three Defendants) (Count X).³ Finally, Plaintiff makes clear that he is suing Sheriff Smith and Defendant Harris in their official and individual capacities. (Am. Compl., Dkt. No. [10] ¶ 16.)

The Court first considers Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend the Amended Complaint [31] and Defendants' collective Motion to Dismiss or in the Alternative Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint [27]. After resolving these motions, the Court considers each Defendant's Motion to Dismiss.

Discussion

I. Preliminary Matters

As a threshold matter, the Court notes that Defendant Yearwood has been dismissed from this action by stipulation. (Stip. of Dismissal, Dkt. No. [16].) Accordingly, Defendant Yearwood's Motion to Dismiss [4] is DENIED as moot.

Furthermore, the filing of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint [10] rendered moot the other Defendants' original Motions to Dismiss. Accordingly, Defendant Barrow County's Motion to Dismiss [4], Defendant Smith's Motion to Dismiss [6], and Defendant Harris's Motion to Dismiss [8] are likewise DENIED as moot.

II. Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend [31]⁴

Under Rule 15(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party may amend a pleading once as a matter of right within twenty-one days after service of the pleading, or, if the pleading requires a response, within twenty-one days after service of a responsive pleading or motion filed under Rule 12(b), (e), or (f). Otherwise, under Rule 15(a)(2), the party must seek leave of court or the written consent of the opposing parties to amend. Rule 15(a)(2) directs the Court, however, to "freely give leave when justice so requires." Despite this instruction, however, leave to amend is "by no means automatic." Layfield v. Bill Heard Chevrolet Co., 607 F.2d 1097, 1099 (5th Cir. 1...