Williams v. City of Albuquerque
| Decision Date | 28 June 2013 |
| Docket Number | No. 1:13-cv-00136-JAP/ACT,1:13-cv-00136-JAP/ACT |
| Parties | CHRISTINE WILLIAMS, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE and THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF BERNALILLO COUNTY, NEW MEXICO, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of New Mexico |
On March 20, 2013, Defendant City of Albuquerque ("Albuquerque") moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) to dismiss Plaintiff Christine Williams' Count III claim under 28 U.S.C. Section 1983 asserted against Albuquerque in Ms. Williams' COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES (Doc. No. 1-2) ("Complaint"). See DEFENDANT CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE'S MOTION AND MEMORANDUM TO DISMISS ALL MONELL CLAIMS ASSERTED IN THE COMPLAINT (Doc. No. 15) ("Albuquerque Motion to Dismiss"). On April 22, 2013, Defendant Board of County Commissioners of Bernalillo County, New Mexico ("Bernalillo County") also moved under Rule 12(b)(6) to dismiss Ms. Williams' Section 1983 claim against Bernalillo County. See BERNALILLO COUNTY'S MOTION TO DISMISS NO. I: DISMISSAL OF PLAINTIFF'S MUNICIPAL LIABILITY CLAIMS AGAINST BERNALILLO COUNTY (Doc. No. 17) ("Bernalillo County Motion to Dismiss").1 On April 25, 2013, Ms. Williams responded to the Motions to Dismiss. See PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO THE MOTIONS TO DISMISS OF DEFENDANT CITY ANDDEFENDANT COUNTY (Doc. No. 18) ("Response").2 Ms. Williams argues that she should be allowed to conduct discovery in order to locate "facts to show that a custom or practice or lack of training caused the conduct which resulted in her injuries." Id. at 1. Ms. Williams asks the Court to deny the Motions to Dismiss, to allow discovery, or, alternatively, to hold the Motions to Dismiss "in abeyance until after discovery has been completed." Id.
The Court concludes that Ms. Williams has failed to state a Section 1983 claim against either Albuquerque or Bernalillo County. Therefore, the Court will dismiss Count III of Ms. Williams' Complaint with prejudice. The Court will also decline supplementary jurisdiction over Ms. Williams' remaining claims, which are asserted under state law. Instead, the Court will remand those claims to the state court where Ms. Williams originally filed them.
The Court assumes the following allegations from Ms. Williams' Complaint to be true for the purposes of the Court's ruling on the Motions to Dismiss.
Ms. Williams is a resident of Albuquerque and of Bernalillo County. See Complaint ¶ 1. On February 28, 2011, employees or agents of Defendants arrived at Ms. Williams' home in Albuquerque. See id. ¶ 8. Defendants' employees indicated to Ms. Williams that they had bench warrants for her arrest due to traffic offenses for which she had not appeared in court. See id. ¶¶ 9, 11. The municipal employees then took Ms. Williams into custody and transported her to the jail in downtown Albuquerque. See id. ¶ 10. At this jail, different municipal employees changed the handcuffs with which Ms. Williams was restrained. See id. 12. These new handcuffs "constricted the blood flow" going to Ms. Williams' hands, and although she requested that the handcuffs be loosened or replacedwith double cuffs, Defendants' employees did not adjust the handcuffs. Id. ¶¶ 12-15. Ms. Williams has a stocky frame, and says that it "should have been apparent to a reasonable observer that her hands did not meet behind her back" as is necessary for a single set of handcuffs. Id. ¶ 14.
Next, Defendants' employees placed Ms. Williams in a van with other detainees in order to transport them all to Albuquerque's Metropolitan Detention Center ("MDC"). See id. ¶¶ 15-16. By this time, because the handcuffs were restricting blood flow, Ms. Williams' "wrists and hands had turned purple." Id. ¶ 15. The van driver then "drove the vehicle in such a reckless manner that all the passengers were screaming for him to stop." Id. ¶ 16. The recklessness of the driving meant that Ms. Williams "had to hold onto the restraint behind her back in an effort to not be thrown around the van," and the resulting position further injured her wrists and hands. Id. ¶¶ 16-17.
Once Ms. Williams arrived at the MDC, Defendants' employees removed her handcuffs, but although Ms. Williams "hands were purple and had no feeling in them, the Defendants' medical personnel provided no treatment" to her. Id. ¶ 18. Ms. Williams also informed these medical personnel "that she suffered from chronic back pain, was suffering severe back pain at that time," was also suffering from high blood pressure, and needed medication for both conditions. Id. ¶¶ 19-20. However, Defendants' employees only provided Ms. Williams with an antidepressant. See id. ¶ 21.
Ms. Williams had a court appearance by monitor on March 1, 2011. At that time, she informed one of Defendants' officers at the MDC "that her hands were injured and numb." Id. ¶ 22. Despite this, Defendants' officer refused to provide any help to Ms. Williams, saying that "there was no time for medical attention because [Ms. Williams] had to be downtown for court at 1:30 pm." Id. Later, while in the MDC's holding area, Ms. Williams again asked Defendants' employees "to loosen her handcuffs or install a double handcuff," but Defendants' employees refused to accommodate her. Id. ¶ 23. After arriving at her next destination, a different officer employed by Defendants observed "the serious condition" of Ms. Williams' hands due to the handcuffs, and he removed the handcuffs. Id. ¶ 24. However, when Ms. Williams had to be re-handcuffed when returning to the MDC, yet another ofDefendants' officers "refused to use double handcuffs," so Ms. Williams at first would not board the van. Id. ¶ 25. A different driver employed by Defendants then procured a second set of handcuffs to use for Ms. Williams. See id. Back at the MDC, Ms. Williams repeatedly asked Defendants' medical personnel for medication for her back and blood pressure conditions, but Defendants' medical personnel did not give Ms. Williams any medication for these issues. See id. ¶ 26.
Ms. Williams was released from detention on March 3, 2011. See id. ¶ 27. By this time, she had not taken her medication for back pain and blood pressure since the morning of February 28, 2011, when she was at home. See id. ¶ 27. Upon release, Ms. Williams immediately sought care at an emergency room in Albuquerque. See id. ¶ 28. Emergency room staff found Ms. Williams' blood pressure to be so high that they conducted "an EKG to see whether [her] heart had been damaged." Id. Hospital personnel also conducted an x-ray of Ms. Williams' hand and wrist, which revealed a contusion. See id. ¶ 29. Ms. Williams later went to her own physician, "who diagnosed possible injury to a tendon" in Ms. Williams' hand and sent her to an orthopedic specialist, who operated on the hand on May 5, 2011. Id. ¶ 30. Ms. Williams later underwent another surgery on her hand and wrist. She has required medical care for the injury ever since her release from Defendants' custody. See id. at ¶¶31-33. She "will likely suffer pain and weakness in her right hand for the rest of her life." Id. ¶ 34.
On May 12, 2011, Ms. Williams mailed notices of her tort claim to both Defendants. See id. ¶¶ 5-6. On December 17, 2012, Ms. Williams filed an action against Defendants in state court, the Second Judicial District, County of Bernalillo. See id. at 1. On February 8, 2013, Bernalillo County removed the case to this Court, citing Ms. Williams' claim under Section 1983 as the basis for federal court jurisdiction. See NOTICE OF REMOVAL (Doc. No. 1) at 2.
On June 14, 2013, Ms. Williams filed an AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES (Doc. No. 30) ("Amended Complaint"). Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1)(B), a party mayamend a complaint "to which a responsive pleading is required, 21 days after service of a responsive pleading or 21 days after service of a motion under Rule 12(b), (e), or (f), whichever is earlier." Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(B) (emphasis added). DEFENDANT CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES (Doc. No. 9) was filed on February 12, 2013 and COUNTY DEFENDANT'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES (Doc. No. 10) was filed on February 15, 2013. Defendants filed the Motions to Dismiss in March and April of 2013. Therefore, under Rule 15(a)(1)(B), the Court uses the Answers as the "earlier" date from which to calculate the deadline for amendments as of right. As a result, this deadline is 21 days from either February 12, 2013, or February 15, 2013. Even using the later of these two dates, Ms. Williams was required to file her Amended Complaint by March 8, 2013. Otherwise, under Rule 15(a)(2), she was required to obtain "the opposing party's written consent or the court's leave." Although in her Response Ms. Williams indicated that she would "be amending her Complaint to name specific employees whom she alleges caused her harm," Ms. Williams never sought the Court's or opposing counsel's leave to amend her Complaint. See Response at 2, n.2. Therefore, the Court will disregard the Amended Complaint in its discussion of the Motions to Dismiss, and will dismiss the Amended Complaint without prejudice.3
A court may dismiss a complaint for "failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). "Generally, the sufficiency of a complaint must rest on its contents alone," without consideration of additional materials that may already be in the parties' possession or that may be produced in discovery. Gee v. Pacheco, 627 F.3d 1178, 1186 (10th Cir. 2010) (citing, e.g., Casanova v. Ulibarri, 595 F.3d 1120, 1125 (10th Cir. 2010)). The Supreme Court has articulated atwo-step approach for district courts to use when considering a motion to dismiss. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). First, a court should identify "pleadings that, because they are no more than conclusions, are not entitled to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial