Rentz v. Spokane County, CV-05-83-AAM.

• Decision Date: 27 June 2006
• Docket Number: No. CV-05-83-AAM.,CV-05-83-AAM.
• Citation: 438 F.Supp.2d 1252
• Parties: Debra RENTZ and Billie Rentz, as copersonal representatives of the Estate of Christopher L. Rentz, et al., Plaintiffs, and William Rentz, in his individual capacity, Plaintiff-Intervenor, v. SPOKANE COUNTY, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Washington

Page 1252

438 F.Supp.2d 1252

Debra RENTZ and Billie Rentz, as copersonal representatives of the Estate of Christopher L. Rentz, et al., Plaintiffs, and William Rentz, in his individual capacity, Plaintiff-Intervenor, v. SPOKANE COUNTY, et al., Defendants.

No. CV-05-83-AAM.

United States District Court, E.D. Washington.

June 27, 2006.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Julian E. St. Marie, Julian St. Marie Law Offices, Spokane, WA, for Plaintiffs.

Mark James Harris, Maxey Law Offices, Spokane, WA, for Plaintiff-Intervenor.

Heather C. Yakely, Hugh Terrence Lackie, Evans Craven & Lackie PS, Spokane, WA, for Defendants.

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT, IN PART, INTER ALIA

McDONALD, Senior District Judge.

BEFORE THE COURT are Defendants' Motion For Partial Summary Judgment (Ct.Rec.47), Plaintiffs' Joint Motion To Amend Complaint (Ct.Rec.66), and Plaintiffs' Joint Motion To Continue Trial (Ct.Rec.63).

The motion for partial summary judgment was heard with oral argument on June 20, 2006. Julian E. St. Marie, Esq., argued on behalf of Plaintiffs and Plaintiff-Intervenor.¹ Heather Yakely, Esq., argued on behalf of Defendants. The Joint Motion To Amend Complaint (Ct. Rec.66) and the Joint Motion To Continue Trial (Ct.Rec.63) were considered without oral argument.

I. BACKGROUND

Christopher L. Rentz was being held as a pre-trial detainee in the Spokane County Jail when on October 2, 2004, he was murdered by two fellow pre-trial detainees.

Plaintiffs Debra Rentz and Billie Rentz, as co-personal representatives of the Estate of Christopher L. Rentz, seek recovery of damages under Washington's wrongful death and survival statutes for violation of the federal constitutional rights of Christopher L. Rentz (the "decedent").² Debra Rentz and William Rentz, parents of the decedent, and Billie Rentz and Thomas Gregg, siblings of the decedent, are designated beneficiaries under the wrongful death and survival statutes.

Debra Rentz, William Rentz, Billie Rentz, and Thomas Gregg, also seek recovery of damages for violation of their own federal constitutional rights for loss of association with their son and brother.

William Rentz also seeks recovery of damages based on common law claims of outrage and negligent infliction of emotional distress.

When they first filed their motion, defendants sought summary judgment on all of the wrongful death causes of action asserted pursuant to state law because of a lack of evidence that Debra Rentz, William Rentz, Billie Rentz and Thomas Gregg were financially dependent upon the decedent at the time of his death. Defendants also sought summary judgment on the Eighth Amendment cause of action asserted on behalf of decedent, due to the fact he was a pre-trial detainee and had not been convicted. In their response brief, the plaintiffs did not dispute that they were not financially dependent upon the decedent. They asserted, however, that this did not preclude recovery of damages for wrongful death under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 which borrows Washington's wrongful death statutes.

In their reply brief, the defendants asserted that not only is recovery precluded for the wrongful death cause of action brought pursuant to state law, but that it is also precluded under federal law. Furthermore, defendants asserted that Debra Rentz, William Rentz, Billie Rentz, and Thomas Gregg are precluded from recovery under federal law for loss of association with their son and brother.

Because the defendants' reply brief expanded the scope of the summary judgment sought by defendants, the court granted the plaintiffs leave to file a supplemental brief so that it would be fair and proper to consider the expanded scope of relief sought by defendants.

On the same date that defendants' reply brief was filed with the court (June 6), plaintiffs filed their Joint Motion To Amend Complaint and Joint Motion To Continue Trial.

II. JOINT MOTIONS TO AMEND COMPLAINT AND CONTINUE TRIAL

Plaintiffs seek to add four individuals (Spokane County Jail Officers Grooms, Mason and Foo; Spokane County Jail Nurse Judith Erickson) and Spokane County Mental Health as defendants. According to plaintiffs, the involvement of these individuals in the placement of decedent in the same jail dormitory as the individuals who murdered him came to light during depositions which have been conducted, including one of Judith Erickson that was conducted on April 25, 2006. Plaintiffs contend the trial should be continued because of the additional discovery that will need to be conducted with regard to the additional defendants.

The proposed amended complaint would drop the Eighth Amendment cause of action asserted on behalf of a decedent, a concession that recovery under the Eighth Amendment for failure to protect is not possible since the decedent was a pre-trial detainee and not a convict. Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 393 & n. 6, 109 S.Ct. 1865, 104 L.Ed.2d 443 (1989).

The defendants contend that adding the individual county defendants (Grooms, Mason, Foo and Erickson) is pointless because Spokane County has not alleged that any of its employees acted outside the scope and course of their employment with regard to the events surrounding the death of Christopher L. Rentz. It is not pointless. Plaintiffs propose to assert constitutional claims against these new defendants in their personal ("individual") capacities, as well as their official ("representative") capacities, seeking to hold them personally responsible for their alleged actions and/or omissions related to the death of the decedent. All of the named defendants in the current complaint are sued in both their "individual" and "representative" capacities. When a plaintiff names an official in his individual capacity, he is seeking "to impose personal liability upon a government official for actions he [or she] takes under color of state law." Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 165, 105 S.Ct. 3099, 87 L.Ed.2d 114 (1985). When a plaintiff names a government official in his official capacity, the plaintiff is seeking compensatory damages from the government body itself and this requires proof that an official policy or custom is the cause of the constitutional violation. Id. at 165-66, 105 S.Ct. 3099. Punitive damages are available only against individual defendants for actions taken under color of state law in their individual capacity. Smith v. Wade, 461 U.S. 30, 56, 103 S.Ct. 1625, 75 L.Ed.2d 632 (1983).

Defendants contend proposed new defendant Spokane County Mental Health is prejudiced because it does not know about the proposed amended complaint and has not had an opportunity to object.³ Of course, Spokane County Mental Health does not have notice because it is not yet a named defendant. That does not, however, preclude the court from allowing it to be named as such. Once named and served with an amended complaint, it can assert appropriate defenses.

Defendants contend the plaintiffs' proposed amended complaint also has an improper purpose in that it seeks to circumvent the summary judgment sought by defendants. To the extent the proposed amended complaint alleges wrongful death causes of action under state law, those causes of action remain subject to summary judgment, as discussed infra, because there is no dispute that the parents and siblings of decedent were not financially dependent upon him at the time of his death. Furthermore, allowing an amended complaint which drops the Eighth Amendment cause of action effectively achieves the same result as the summary judgment sought by defendants with regard to that cause of action. The "Joint Motion To Amend Complaint" does not circumvent the summary judgment motion filed by defendants. Nor does it circumvent the expanded scope of summary judgment relief sought by defendants via their reply brief.

Defendants contend the proposed amended complaint sets forth new causes of action. According to defendants, plaintiffs propose a new cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1988. § 1988, however, is not a cause of action separate from § 1983. § 1988 provides remedies for § 1983 violations, including "borrowing" of state law to effectuate a remedy, as discussed infra.

Defendants contend that plaintiffs have added causes of action on behalf of the decedent for loss of life and enjoyment of life, and deprivation of "constitutionally guaranteed bodily security and his right to life." This additional language simply elaborates upon the Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process cause of action asserted on behalf of decedent as already set forth in the original complaint filed by plaintiffs, and the "Complaint in Intervention" filed by William Rentz.

Defendants contend the proposed amended complaint alleges a new cause of action for Billie Rentz for "loss of companionship and association" and a new cause of action for Thomas Gregg for "loss of consortium and association." The original complaint filed by plaintiffs, however, is clear that Billie Rentz and Thomas Gregg are asserting causes of action for violation of their Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process rights.

It is true the original complaint filed by the plaintiffs and the "Complaint In Intervention" filed by William Rentz are not as clear about asserting wrongful death and survival actions for the benefit of decedent's estate and the beneficiaries designated under Washington's wrongful death and survival statutes. The proposed amended complaint makes that clear and in doing so, does not prejudice the defendants. Furthermore, defendants are not prejudiced since the court is also granting the plaintiffs'"Joint Motion To Continue Trial."

There being no bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of plaintiffs, and the defendants not suffering any prejudice, justice requires that plaintiffs be given leave to amend their complaints pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a). Plaintiffs'"Joint Motion To Amend Complaint" (Ct.Rec.66) is GRANTED. Plaintiffs'"Second Joint Amended...