United States District Court, M.D. Alabama, Northern Division
EMMA D. COOK, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
CORIZON, LLC, et al., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER
STEPHEN M. DOYLE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
I.
INTRODUCTION
This
lawsuit arises from the death of a State prisoner, John S.
Cook (“Cook”), due to allegedly inadequate
medical care. Plaintiffs, the personal representatives of
Cook's estate, bring personal capacity constitutional and
state-law wrongful death claims against, among others, three
Alabama Department of Corrections' (“ADOC”)
supervisory officials: ADOC Commissioner Jefferson Dunn, ADOC
Associate Commissioner for Health Services Ruth Naglich, and
Warden of the Kilby Correctional Facility Phyllis Billups.
Plaintiffs' amended complaint (Doc. 26) pleads no facts
showing that these ADOC supervisory officials had any
personal involvement in Cook's allegedly inadequate
medical care, and their constitutional and state-law claims
against these ADOC supervisory officials are due to be
dismissed for failure to state a claim. In addition,
plaintiffs' claims against fictitious defendants A-L are
dismissed because fictitious-party practice is generally
prohibited in federal court.
II.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
Plaintiffs
allege that Cook was Bipolar and suffered from Hepatitis C.
Amd. Compl. (Doc. 26) ¶¶ 26-28. In April 2013, Cook
was transferred to Bullock Correctional Facility.
Id. at ¶ 29. In April 2014, Cook presented to
the medical staff at Bullock and was noted to have a hernia.
Id. at ¶ 31. On August 15, 2015, Cook
complained of severe abdominal pain to medical staff at
Bullock Correctional Facility, and he was transferred to
Bullock County Hospital for evaluation. Id. at
¶¶ 43-44. The Emergency Room at Bullock County
diagnosed Cook with an incarcerated umbilical hernia and
transferred him to Jackson Hospital for surgery. Id.
at ¶ 44. Jackson Hospital staff performed hernia surgery
on August 16, 2015, and removed a gangrenous loop of small
intestine noting that Cook had a long history of umbilical
hernia. Id. at ¶ 45.
Jackson
Hospital discharged Cook to ADOC with instructions for proper
wound care. Id. at ¶ 45. On or about August 20,
2015, Cook was admitted to a ward at Kilby Correctional
Facility. Id. at ¶ 47. Cook's wound was not
properly cared for, he had a significant mental status
change, and his nutritional state deteriorated. Id.
at ¶¶ 48-53. On September 10, 2015, Defendant Dr.
Rahming noted that there might be sepsis and suggested that
Cook be referred to a hospital. Id. at ¶ 54.
On or
about September 13, 2015, Cook was transferred to the Jackson
Hospital Emergency Room where he presented with malnutrition
and acute renal failure with electrolyte abnormalities in
addition to advanced Hepatic Cirrhosis. Id. at
¶ 57. Jackson Hospital staff performed surgery and noted
that Cook's intestine was ischemic. Id. Jackson
Hospital kept Cook in the ICU for several days and treated
his severe metabolic acidosis and sepsis along with treatment
of the surgical wound. Id.
On or
about October 1, 2015, Cook returned from Jackson Hospital to
the infirmary at Kilby Correctional Facility. Id. at
¶ 58. On October 4, 2015, after several bouts of
vomiting coffee ground emesis, Cook was transferred back to
Jackson Hospital where he died on October 5, 2015.
Id. at ¶¶ 60-61.
II.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Plaintiffs
filed this action in State court on March 8, 2017, asserting
claims for negligence/wantonness, medical malpractice, and
violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. State Court Complaint
(Doc. 1) Attachment 1. Defendants removed on the basis of
federal question jurisdiction (Doc. 1), and defendants ADOC,
Dunn, Naglich, and Billups moved to dismiss. (Doc. 12). The
court then sua sponte entered an order instructing
plaintiffs to file an amended complaint to clarify whether
they were pursuing a wrongful death claim and denying
defendants' motion to dismiss without prejudice to
refile. (Doc. 25). Plaintiffs filed their first amended
complaint (Doc. 26), which is the operative pleading now
before the court, and defendants ADOC (Doc. 28), Billups
(Doc. 29), Dunn (Doc. 30), and Naglich (Doc. 31) each filed
separate motions to dismiss. By separate Order filed
contemporaneously with this Order, the court granted
ADOC's motion to dismiss.
III.
PLAINTIFFS' CLAIMS
The
amended complaint pleads four counts against the ADOC
supervisory officials. Count III is a state-law wrongful
death claim against Commissioner Dunn and Associate
Commissioner Naglich in their individual capacities alleging
that they negligently or wantonly violated a duty to ensure
that Corizon provided constitutionally adequate medical care
to inmates. Amd. Compl. (Doc. 26) at ¶¶ 81-86.
Count IV is a state-law wrongful death claim against
Associate Commissioner Naglich in her individual capacity
alleging that she negligently or wantonly breached her duties
as required by ADOC AR 700. Amd. Compl . (Doc . 26) at
¶¶ 87-90 . Count V is a state - law wrongful death
claim against Warden Billups in her individual capacity
alleging that she negligently or wantonly breached her duties
under ADOC AR 700. Amd. Compl. (Doc. 26) at ¶¶
91-95. Count VI is a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim against all
defendants for deliberate indifference to Cook's serious
medical needs resulting in his death. Amd. Compl. (Doc. 26)
¶¶ 96-105.
V.
LEGAL STANDARD
A
motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) tests the sufficiency
of the complaint against Rule 8's pleading standard which
requires “a short and plain statement of the claim
showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). A complaint fails to satisfy this
standard “where the well-pleaded facts do not permit
the court to infer more than the mere possibility of
misconduct[.]” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
662, 679 (2009). “Threadbare recitals of the elements
of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory
statements, do not suffice.” Id. at 678. Rule
8 “demands more than an unadorned,
the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation. A pleading
that offers labels and conclusions or a formulaic recitation
of the elements of a cause of action will not do. Nor does a
complaint suffice if it tenders naked assertions devoid of
further factual enhancement.” Id. (internal
quotes and citations omitted). The Supreme Court instructs
that, “[t]o survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint
must contain ...