Stevens v. Holler
| Decision Date | 10 July 2020 |
| Docket Number | Civil Case No. 19-cv-03368-JMC |
| Parties | SHELLY STEVENS, et al. Plaintiffs, v. HOLLER, et al. Defendants |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Maryland |
This suit arises out of James Leslie Stevens' ("Mr. Stevens" or "Decedent") unfortunate death, which occurred one day after he was released from the Allegany County Detention Center ("ACDC" or the "Detention Center"). (ECF No. 71 ¶ 158-60). Suit is brought by his estate and his surviving spouse ("Plaintiffs"). The parties consented to proceed before a Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and Local Rule 301.4. (ECF No. 60). On May 6, 2020, Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 71). Now pending before the Court is a Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 72) filed by Dawn M. Holler, Stephanie D. Shroyer, Donald Frederick Manger, Leslie A. Logsdon, James A. Piazza, Lisa R. Shutts, Jodi L. Brashear ("Individual Defendants"), and Wellpath, LLC ("Wellpath") (collectively "Medical Defendants").1 Plaintiffs filed an Opposition, and the Medical Defendants filed a Reply. (ECF Nos. 73 & 76). For the reasons outlined below, the Medical Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED as to Counts I-IV, alleging constitutional violations, and the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction overCounts V-VII, the remaining state tort law claims. Although Counts V, VI and VII are also dismissed, they may be refiled in the appropriate state court within thirty (30) days from the date of the accompanying order.
The relevant factual allegations contained are summarized within this Court's previous Opinion. (ECF No. 69). In that decision, this Court granted the Motion to Dismiss filed by the Allegany County Government Defendants. (ECF No. 70). The Medical Defendants did not join in that motion. Though the Court afforded Plaintiffs the opportunity to amend their Complaint to address the deficiencies outlined by the Court as to the Allegany County Government Defendants, they did not do so, but instead made certain amendments as to the Medical Defendants only. (ECF No. 71). Accordingly, this section of facts is limited to those allegations that are new to the Second Amended Complaint.
Plaintiffs provide the Court with information about CCS' litigation based on care rendered to inmates and detainees at other facilities, including its "long and troubled history of failing to ensure that its employees call for hospitalizations or provide necessary medical care in the face of medical emergencies." (ECF No. 71 ¶ 108-14). As of October 2018, CCS had been party to over 1,400 lawsuits "arising out of its provision of inadequate medical care and failures to properly respond to and treat inmates' conditions." Id. ¶ 109. Plaintiffs also mention that according to CNN Id. ¶ 110. Plaintiffs incorporate eleven specific cases2 in theirSecond Amended Complaint to provide "pertinent examples of Correct Care Solutions' and/or its employees' failure to provide adequate medical care, respond to medical emergencies or treat serious conditions similar to those presented by Mr. Stevens, or prevent unnecessary inmate deaths . . . ." Id. ¶ 111. Plaintiffs do not assert that any of these other cases involved ACDC or the individual health care providers involved in Mr. Stevens' case.
Plaintiffs contend that CCS, despite knowing that some of its employees at other facilities were persistently accused of the same kind of medical malpractice and negligence, and that those actions and omissions purportedly led to at least 70 inmate deaths before and immediately after Mr. Stevens' detention, took no action to ensure that hospitalizations would occur when necessary, to ensure staff was properly trained on how to respond to a medical emergency; or to ensure that medical doctors would always be available for in-person visits at the facility. Id. ¶ 114. To the contrary, Plaintiffs argue that CCS "continued to tout to counties and municipalities that it was the best vendor for medical services because it provides in-house care in a cost-effective manner." Id.
Plaintiffs assert that, consistent with the pattern outlined above, Mr. Stevens never received emergency care during his time at the Detention Center. Id. ¶ 115. Rather, Mr. Stevens remained at the facility for four days. Id. Upon admittance to ACDC, Mr. Stevens was 44 years old and had many serious medical disabilities. Id. ¶ 24. Mr. Stevens weighed approximately 375 pounds and had a history of congestive heart failure, chronic systolic hypertension (high blood pressure), asthma, sleep apnea, low testosterone, neuropathy, and diabetes mellitus. Id. Mr. Stevens was also insulin-and oxygen-dependent and wore compression stockings. Id. He was prescribed and taking a host of medication to treat or manage his health conditions. Id. Mr. Stevens also reported that he drank alcohol and was a heavy smoker, and that he used oxycodone and heroin regularly,as well as benzodiazepines when opiates were unavailable. Id. ¶ 32. He had last used drugs on Thanksgiving, November 24, 2016, the day prior to reporting to ACDC. Id. ¶ 32.
Notwithstanding his "comorbid medical conditions and recent injury, Mr. Stevens was in stable health at the time of his surrender." Id. ¶ 27. Mr. Stevens was received into custody at 1:41 a.m. on November 25, 2016. Id. ¶ 29. At the time of intake, his "pulse and respiration rates, temperature, and oxygen saturation were normal," and he indicated a six out of ten on a pain scale, which is one level above "moderate pain." Id. ¶ 35-36. Mr. Stevens' systolic blood pressure was "extremely high upon intake," at 185 over a diastolic blood pressure of 100. Id. ¶ 38. According to Plaintiffs, this same day, a "medical crisis" emerged, and it became acutely dangerous in the early morning of November 26 and persisted until his release and ultimately led to Mr. Stevens' death. Id. ¶ 115.
The Medical Defendants move to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), under which Plaintiffs' pleadings are subject to dismissal if they "fail[] to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). A pleading must contain a "short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief and must state a "plausible claim for relief." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009) (). A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff, "pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the [opposing party] is liable for the misconduct alleged." Id. .
At this stage, all well-pleaded allegations in a complaint must be considered as true, and all factual allegations must be construed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. See Harrison v. Westinghouse Savannah River Co., 176 F.3d 776, 783 (4th Cir. 1999). In evaluating the complaint, unsupported legal allegations need not be accepted. Revene v. Charles Cty. Comm'rs, 882 F.3d 870, 873 (4th Cir. 1989).
In resolving a motion under Rule 12(b)(6), a court considers matters only within the pleadings. If matters outside the pleadings are presented, and are considered, the motion shall be treated as one for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56. Humphrey v. Nat'l Flood Ins. Program, 885 F. Supp. 133, 136 (D. Md. 1995). Under limited circumstances, however, when resolving a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a court may consider documents beyond the complaint without converting the motion to dismiss to one for summary judgement. Goldfarb v. Mayor & City Council, 791 F.3d 500, 508 (4th Cir. 2005). In particular, a court may consider documents that are "explicitly incorporated into the complaint by reference and those attached to the complaint as exhibits." Goines v. Valley Comm. Servs. Bd., 822 F.3d 159, 166 (4th Cir. 2016) (internal citation omitted).
The Second Amended Complaint contains seven causes of action. See (ECF No. 71). Counts I, III, V, and VI are pleaded against the Individual Defendants and Counts II, IV, and VII are pleaded against Defendant CCS. Specifically, the claims are as follows:
These claims are grouped and addressed in-turn.
Section 1983 of Title 42 of the United States Code provides that a plaintiff may file suit against any person who, acting under color of state law "subjects or caused to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws" of the United States. See Owens v. Balt. City...
To continue reading
Request your trial