Wesley v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Cnty. Police Dep't
| Decision Date | 30 September 2020 |
| Docket Number | DOCKET NO. 3:19-cv-00425-FDW-DCK |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of North Carolina |
| Parties | GEORGE L. WESLEY, Plaintiff, v. CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT, DETECTIVE A. RENO, POLICE OFFICER/NAME UNKNOWN, MECKLENBURG COUNTY JAIL, WELLPATH, LLC, PSYCHIATRIC NURSE/INTAKE/NAME UNKNOWN, MECKLENBURG COUNTY, MECKLENBURG COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, SHERIFF GARY L. MFADDEN, CHIEF OF POLICE KERR PUTNEY, Defendants. |
THIS MATTER is before the Court on several Motions to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint (Docs. Nos. 3, 10, 15, 17, 18, 23, 33). Pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975), the Court issued notices (Docs. Nos. 19, 24) to Plaintiff, who appears pro se, advising him of the burden he carries in responding to Defendants' motions, and all motions have been fully briefed. Additionally, Plaintiff has moved "for summary disposition" against Defendant Wellpath, LLC. (Doc. No. 43). Upon review by the Court, for the reasons below, the Motions to Dismiss the Complaint (Docs. Nos. 3, 10, 33) are DENIED AS MOOT, the Motions to Dismiss the Amended Complaint (Docs. Nos. 15, 17, 18, & 23) are GRANTED, and the Motion for "Summary Disposition" (Doc. No. 43) is DENIED.
The procedural background of this case warrants explanation at the outset, as the pro se Plaintiff has filed multiple iterations of his complaint against Defendants. Plaintiff initiated this action on August 30, 2019, by filing a complaint against Defendants Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department ("CMPD"), CMPD Detective A. Reno, Mecklenburg County Sheriff's Office, an unknown CMPD police officer, and an unknown psychiatric nurse. (Doc. No. 1). On September 23, 2019, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint to add claims against additional Defendants: Mecklenburg County Jail, Mecklenburg County, Sheriff Gary L. McFadden ("Sheriff McFadden"), Chief of Police Kerr Putney ("Chief Putney"), and "Well Path [sic] Select Incorporated." (Doc. No. 5.) Aside from substituting some names (replacing "Sherriff Department" with "Jail," for example), the allegations remained almost identical. Compare Doc. No. 1, pp. 9-10 with Doc. No. 5, pp. 4-5). Notably, unlike the original complaint, the Amended Complaint did not include any signature page. (Doc. No. 1, p. 7).
Defendants CMPD, Mecklenburg County Jail, Mecklenburg County Sheriff's Office, Sherriff McFadden, Chief Putney, John Doe, and Detective A. Reno all moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint. (Docs. Nos. 10, 15, 17, 18, 23).
Defendant Wellpath Select Incorporated, an allegedly now non-existent entity, filed through its successor Aetna Health, Inc., a limited appearance on December 4, 2019. Arguing that Plaintiff mistakenly sued the wrong entity, Wellpath Select Incorporated moved to dismiss on multiple grounds, including the lack of any allegation against it. (Docs. Nos. 33, 36, p. 2). Wellpath Select Incorporated argued Plaintiff likely intended to sue the similarly named company, "Wellpath, LLC." Id. On December 24, 2019, after the motion had been fully briefed and whileit was still pending, Plaintiff filed a purported Second Amended Complaint without leave of court or the consent of Defendants. (Doc. No. 38). The new pleading seeks to add "Wellpath LLC" as a defendant by inserting "Wellpath LLC, formerly known as Correct Care" in various places throughout the allegations that were otherwise identical to the original and first Amended Complaint. (See Doc. No. 38, pp 9-10). Plaintiff proceeded to attempt to serve Wellpath, LLC, with the Second Amended Complaint. On January 17, 2020, Plaintiff and Wellpath Select Incorporated filed a stipulation of voluntary dismissal of all claims against Wellpath Select Incorporated with prejudice (Doc. No. 39). On February 2, 2020, Wellpath LLC, appeared through counsel to "answer[] Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint [DE38] . . .. " (Doc. No. 41).
The Court will resolve the various issues associated with Plaintiff's unilateral filing of amended complaints below; however, the Court relies on both the First and Second Amended Complaints to provide the following factual background. In short, Plaintiff brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and alleges Defendants violated his Eighth and Ninth Amendment rights by conspiring "to separate the Plaintiff from his resources, diminish his rights as a citizen, and unlawfully incarcerate Plaintiff beyond reasonable accommodations set forth by law." (Doc. No. 5, p. 4; Doc. No. 38, p. 9).
Plaintiff alleges CMPD Detective A. Reno arrested him and subsequently falsified a psychological profile of Plaintiff that portrayed him as mentally unstable. The allegations are unclear as to when or why this arrest occurred, and none of the allegations challenge the validity of the arrest. Plaintiff's claims hinge on Reno's alleged "Psychological profiling that portrayed events that occurred September 17, 2018 through to September 26, 2018 as an event concurrent with the arrest and detention of the Plaintiff." (Doc. No. 5, p.4; Doc. No. 38, p. 9). According toPlaintiff, an unknown psychiatric nurse adopted Detective Reno's psychological profile as her own assessment and ordered Plaintiff to have a psychological evaluation by an area hospital before seeing a magistrate for bond. Plaintiff contends he was transported to Atrium Health Emergency Department on October 8, 2018, around 10:40 p.m., where it was "accessed [sic] as not a threat" and discharged back into police custody fifteen minutes later at 10:55 p.m. (Doc. No. 5, p. 4, ¶ 2; Doc. No. 38, pp. 9, ¶2).
Once back at Mecklenburg County Jail, Plaintiff saw a magistrate before being taken to a cell. The allegations do not indicate any decision or orders entered by the magistrate. The next morning, Plaintiff was taken to a medical observation cell. While in the observation cell, a jail nurse, whom the purported Second Amended Complaint indicates was employed by WellPath LLC, visited Plaintiff "with the same fostered [sic] assessment document in her possession." (Doc. No. 5, pp. 4-5, ¶4; Doc. No. 38, p. 9, ¶4). Later that evening, Plaintiff was taken from the observation cell and placed in another holding area. There, he was allegedly informed he was not being released on bond because of an involuntary commitment order. Plaintiff was transported to Novant Health on October 9, 2018, and admitted at 9:57 p.m. after Novant Health accepted "the officer's claim of a signed Involuntary Commit [sic] Order and planned the Plaintiff's treatment as such." (Doc. No. 5, p. 5, ¶ 6; Doc. No. 38, pp. 10, ¶6). According to the Complaints, he was "deemed stable and did not meet the criteria for inpatient psychiatric treatment" from Novant Health on October 10, 2018, at 2:05 p.m. Id. The allegations do not mention whether Plaintiff was then released back to the jail, released on bond, or otherwise free to leave. Plaintiff requests relief in the form of $20 million dollars from Defendants.
The amendment of pleadings is governed by Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In pertinent part, Rule 15 provides:
Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1) (emphasis added). Where a party seeks to amend his complaint more than once as a matter of course, Rule 15(a)(2) permits amendment only with the defendant's written consent or the court's leave. However, Rule 15(a)'s "permissive standard" provides that such leave should be freely given by the court "when justice so requires." Ohio Valley Envtl. Coal., Inc. v. Hernshaw Partners, LLC, 984 F.Supp.2d 589, 592 (S.D.W.Va. 2013) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2)). "This liberal rule gives effect to the federal policy in favor of resolving cases on their merits instead of disposing of them on technicalities." Laber v. Harvey, 438 F.3d 404, 426 (4th Cir. 2006) (en banc); see Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 48, 78 S.Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957). Upholding the letter and the spirit of this rule, "leave to amend a pleading should be denied only when the amendment would be prejudicial to the opposing party, there has been bad faith on the part of the moving party, or the amendment would be futile." Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 242 (4th Cir. 1999) (quoting Johnson v. Oroweat Foods Co., 785 F.2d 503, 509 (4th Cir. 1986)); see also Equal Rights Ctr. v. Niles Bolton Assocs., 602 F.3d 597, 603 (4th Cir. 2010). The grant or denial of a motion for leave to amend a pleading is committed to the sound discretion of the trial court. See Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182, 83 S.Ct. 227, 9 L.Ed.2d 222 (1962); Equal Rights Ctr., 602 F.3d at 603.
Here, Defendants move to dismiss pursuant to several provisions of Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) provides for dismissal when the pleading party fails to "state a claim upon which relief can be granted." Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). A motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) tests the legal "sufficiency of a complaint" but "does not resolve contests surrounding the facts, the merits of a claim, or the applicability of defenses." Republican Party of N.C. v. Martin, 980 F.2d 943, 952 (4th Cir. 1992); accord E. Shore Mkts, Inc. v. J.D. Assocs. Ltd. P'ship, 213 F.3d 175, 180 (4th Cir. 2000). A complaint attacked by a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss will survive if it contains "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 697 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)); see also Robinson v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., 551...
To continue reading
Request your trial