Petersen v. Midgett

• Decision Date: 25 September 2015
• Docket Number: No. 2:12–CV–60–D.,2:12–CV–60–D.
• Citation: 140 F.Supp.3d 490
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of North Carolina
• Parties: James F. PETERSEN, Plaintiff, v. Rodney MIDGETT, former Sheriff of Dare County, et al., Defendants.

140 F.Supp.3d 490

James F. PETERSEN, Plaintiff,

v.Rodney MIDGETT, former Sheriff of Dare County, et al., Defendants.

No. 2:12–CV–60–D.

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

Signed Sept. 25, 2015.

Eric Laurence Doggett, Doggett Law Offices, Raleigh, NC, for Plaintiff.

Kristen Yarbrough Riggs, Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, PLLC, Raleigh, NC, Sonny S. Haynes, Christopher J. Geis, Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, PLLC, Winston–Salem, NC, for Defendants.

ORDER

JAMES C. DEVER III

, Chief Judge.

On September 9, 2012, James F. Petersen ("Petersen" or "plaintiff") filed suit against Paige Lea Meads ("Meads" or "Sergeant Meads"), in her individual capacity, Tommy Ambrose ("Ambrose" or "Sergeant Ambrose"), in his individual capacity, Terry T. Blanchard ("Blanchard"), in his individual capacity, John Does 1–3 and Jane Doe, in their individual capacities, Rodney W. Midgett ("Midgett"), in his official capacity, J.D. Doughtie ("Doughtie" or "Sheriff Doughtie"), in his official capacity, the Ohio Casualty Insurance Company ("OCIC"), as surety, John Doe 1 Surety Company, John Doe 2 Surety Company, and Dare County. Compl. [D.E. 1] 1–6.¹ The complaint alleged negligence and gross negligence, a statutory-bond claim, and federal claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983

for deliberate indifference to serious medical need, failure to train, and failure to develop and implement proper policies. See Compl. ¶¶ 90–126. On December 24, 2012, Petersen filed an amended complaint [D.E. 42], which removed all "Doe" defendants.

On April 30, 2013, Petersen stipulated to the dismissal of Rodney W. Midgett as a defendant [D.E. 52]. On June 6, 2013, Petersen filed a second amended complaint [D.E. 59], which named Meads, Ambrose, Blanchard, Doughtie, OCIC, and Dare County as defendants (collectively, "defendants").

On September 30, 2014, defendants moved for summary judgment [D.E. 78] and filed a supporting memorandum [D.E. 86] and numerous exhibits [D.E. 79–85]. On October 14, 2014, Petersen moved for sanctions for spoliation [D.E. 88] and filed a supporting memorandum [D.E. 92] and numerous exhibits [D.E. 88–91].

On October 21, 2014, Petersen stipulated to the dismissal of Blanchard and Dare County as defendants and to the dismissal of the section 1983

claim against Sheriff Doughtie for failure to train and failure to develop and implement proper policies [D.E. 94]. The remaining claims are: (1) negligence and gross negligence against Meads, Ambrose, and Doughtie; (2) statutory-bond claim against Doughtie and OCIC; and (3) deliberate indifference to serious medical need against Meads and Ambrose. Second Am. Comp. [D.E. 59] ¶¶ 103–29.

On October 31, 2014, defendants responded in opposition to Petersen's motion for sanctions for spoliation [D.E. 96]. On November 3, 2014, Petersen responded in opposition to defendants' motion for summary judgment [D.E. 97]. On November 4, 2014, Petersen filed a "corrected" response in opposition to defendants' motion for summary judgment, which contained an additional exhibit, a second supplemental report by plaintiff's expert Dr. Paul Adler. See [D.E. 98, 98–3]. On November 8, 2014, defendants moved to strike Dr. Adler's second supplemental report [D.E. 99] and filed a supporting memorandum [D.E. 100].

On November 15, 2014, Petersen replied to the defendants' response to the motion for sanctions for spoliation [D.E. 102]. On November 25, 2014, Petersen responded in opposition to defendants' motion to strike Dr. Adler's second supplemental report [D.E. 110]. On December 4, 2014, defendants replied to Petersen's response to the motion for summary judgment [D.E. 115]. On December 12, 2014, defendants replied to Petersen's response to the motion to strike Dr. Adler's supplemental report [D.E. 117].

As explained below, the court grants defendants' motion to strike and defendants' motion for summary judgment, and dismisses plaintiff's motion for sanctions for spoliation as moot.

I.

Petersen has a history of alcohol and drug use. Petersen Dep. 103–111, June 19, 2014.² Petersen started drinking in the seventh grade and has battled alcoholism since adolescence. Id. 152, 156. Around 2007, Petersen began drinking on a daily basis. Id. 38, 110. In 2008, Petersen would binge on alcohol "[a]ll the time." Id. 154. Petersen preferred beer and wine to liquor, and could drink "a 12 pack [of beer] ... and not even think about it." Id. 147, 160. Petersen could drink a case of beer a day. Id. 160.

Petersen's drinking has led to numerous arrests, including several detentions at the Dare County Detention Center ("DCDC"). Id. 58–74; see Dep. Exs. 25–27, 54; Blanchard Dep. 9 (noting that Petersen came into the DCDC "on the regular"). On April 8, 2008, during an incarceration at the DCDC, Sergeant Meads, a DCDC shift supervisor, placed Petersen on suicide watch. Meads Dep. 68–69; see Dep. Exs. 26 at 5, 54 at 1.

On September 10, 2009, Petersen drank beer at his parents' home. Petersen Dep. 163–65, June 19, 2014. Petersen drank approximately 15 beers, which was an atypically large amount for him to drink during that month. Id. 165. Petersen may have also drank some wine that night. Id. 168.

Petersen had a court date scheduled for September 11, 2009, regarding a November 2008 charge for driving while intoxicated. Id. 165–67. On the morning of September 11, 2009, before heading to court, Petersen drank "[a] couple of beers" because he was hung over from the night before and was nervous about his court appearance. Id. 167–69.

At the courthouse, a bailiff smelled alcohol on Petersen. Id. 165–66, 170–71. The bailiff informed Judge Barnes, and Judge Barnes ordered Petersen to be breathalyzed. Id. 171–72. An Alco–Sensor test was administered, and it listed Petersen's blood alcohol content ("BAC") as .32. Id. 172; Dep. Ex. 28 at 1–2. Judge Barnes held Petersen in contempt of court for "appear[ing] in court to answer charge, while being under the influence of alcohol," and ordered Petersen to be placed in custody for 72 hours beginning at 12:18 p.m. Dep. Ex. 28; see Dep. Exs. 25, 29. Petersen was then taken to the DCDC. Petersen Dep. 173.

At 12:47 p.m. on September 11, 2009, Sergeant Meads began booking Petersen into the DCDC. Meads Dep. 20, 53; see Dep. Ex. 30. While booking Petersen, Meads was aware that Petersen had just arrived from court and smelled of alcohol, but she only had Petersen's temporary commitment order at the time of booking, which did not note the reason for Petersen's contempt-of-court commitment or his BAC. Meads Dep. 22, 58, 160–61: see Dep. Exs. 29, 35.

As part of the booking process, Sergeant Meads completed a medical screening form and a mental-health screening form for Petersen. Dep. Exs. 35, 71. Based on Petersen's answers to Meads's questions and Meads's observations of Petersen, Meads concluded that Petersen was "highly intoxicated," although she was not aware of his specific BAC. Meads Dep. 25–26, 56–57; see Dep. Ex. 71. Petersen responded "no" to the question "Should we be concerned about the possibility of withdrawals from alcohol, drugs or medication?," and Meads noted "not at this time." Dep. Ex. 35. Petersen's mental-health screening was positive, so, following protocol, a mental-health facility was called. Meads Dep. 31–34; Simmons Dep. 15–16; see Dep. Ex. 29 (noting a mental-health appointment for Petersen on September 17, 2009); Dep. Ex. 71. Meads did not note any visible signs of injury or illness on Petersen's medical-screening form. Meads Dep. 99; see Dep. Ex. 35. The booking process also included photographing Petersen. See Dep. Exs. 32–33.³

Petersen initially was assigned to the C-pod section of the jail. Meads Dep. 53; see Dep. Ex. 30. Because Petersen was intoxicated, he was not able to be classified. Meads Dep. 27–28, 53–54; cf. Ambrose Dep. 37; Dep. Ex. 9 at 2 (DCDC Facility Medical Plan noting that "[a]nyone that is determined to be intoxicated during the booking process will be housed in a holding cell in the booking area until ... the inmate is sober"). Typically, unclassified inmates are placed in holding cells near the front of the jail, rather than being sent directly to their assigned pod, so that they can be monitored. Dep. Ex. 21 at 2–3; see Ambrose Dep. 35.

According to DCDC policy, detention officers are to monitor unclassified inmates four times per hour. Ambrose Dep. 13, 35; Meads Dep. 65, 89–90, 93–94; Dep. Ex. 21 at 3. Detention officers are also required to monitor intoxicated inmates, inmates on suicide watch, and inmates who have "a previous record of mental illness" four times per hour. Dep. Ex. 14 at 3; Dep. Ex. 17; Dep. Ex. 18 at 2–3; see also Ambrose Dep. 13, 35; Alexander Dep. 19–20. When an inmate is on special watch, detention officers are to mention that inmate in the jail-log report for that round. See Meads Dep. 78, 90; Ambrose Dep. 15. Detention officers are instructed regarding the need for a special watch for any particular inmate by the shift supervisor, and the need for special watch is ordinarily noted in the jail's pass-down notes. See Meads Dep. 77; Zaira Dep. 39. Absent the need for a special watch, detention officers "will conduct supervision rounds of all general population housing units and will directly observe inmates at least twice per hour." Dep. Ex. 18 at 1–2; see Dep. Ex. 17.

When the holding cells are full, unclassified inmates are sometimes placed in C-pod. Ambrose Dep. 38. If an unclassified inmate is placed directly in C-pod, he or she is normally "automatically put ... on a 15 minute watch. Just like if they'd been kept front in holding." Ambrose Dep. 38.

On September 11, 2009, the holding cells were full; therefore, Petersen was sent directly to C-pod. Meads Dep. 55. Although Petersen was unclassified, intoxicated, and had a history of being placed on suicide watch, he was not monitored every 15 minutes while in C-pod during the afternoon of September 11, 2009. See Dep. Exs. 44–46 (reflecting, without specifically mentioning Petersen, that...