United States District Court, N.D. Oklahoma
DESTINY HOLLAND, as Special Administrator of the Estate of Ralph Hal Holland, Jr., Deceased, Plaintiff,
v.
STANLEY GLANZ, et al. Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
JOHN
E. DOWDELL, CHIEF JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT.
Plaintiff,
Destiny Holland, Administrator of the Estate of Ralph Hal
Holland, Jr., brings this suit against Stanley Glanz in his
individual capacity, Tulsa County Sheriff Vic Regalado, the
Tulsa County Board of County Commissioners (BOCC), and Armor
Correctional Health Services, Inc. (Armor). All defendants
have moved to dismiss under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6).
I.
Dismissal Standard
In
considering a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, a court must
determine whether the plaintiff has stated a claim upon which
relief may be granted. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). A complaint
must provide “more than labels and conclusions, and a
formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of
action.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550
U.S. 544, 555 (2007). The standard requires “enough
facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face, ” and the factual allegations “must be
enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative
level.” Id. at 555‒56, 570 (citations
omitted). Twombly articulated the pleading standard
for all civil actions. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556
U.S. 662, 684 (2009). A court must accept all the
well-pleaded factual allegations of the complaint as true,
even if doubtful, and must construe the allegations in the
light most favorable to claimant. See Twombly, 550
U.S. at 555.
II.
Plaintiff's Allegations
Ralph
Hal Holland, Jr. was arrested in November, 2013. (Doc. 2 at
8, ¶ 14). Prior to his arrest, Mr. Holland had been
prescribed medication both for blood pressure and for
combatting depression and hip pain. (Doc. 2 at ¶ 14).
These medications can cause severe side-effects when use is
halted abruptly. Id. One of the side-effects is
increased suicidal tendencies. Id. Upon Mr.
Holland's arrest, Plaintiff informed the arresting
officers that he needed his medications and was suicidal.
(Id. at ¶ 16(a)). Mr. Holland was brought to
the Tulsa County Jail, where Plaintiff informed officials at
the jail that Mr. Holland needed his medications and was
suicidal. (Id. at ¶ 16(b)). At some point,
Plaintiff requested the keys to Mr. Holland's vehicle so
that she could retrieve his medications, but jail officials
refused to give them to her. (Id. at ¶ 14).
Throughout
Mr. Holland's detention, Plaintiff made several attempts
to get Mr. Holland his medications, but “each attempt
was refused by Tulsa County Jail officials despite warnings
that abrupt discontinuance of said medications had severe
side effects, specifically including increased suicidal
tendencies.” (Id. at ¶ 16(c)). On the
evening of November 30, Mr. Holland was severely depressed
and expressed to his ex-wife, Charlotte Inge, that he could
no longer endure the pain. (Id. at ¶ 16(d)).
She immediately contacted Tulsa County Jail officials and
advised them of his statements and suicidal condition.
Id. That night, Mr. Holland was left alone in his
cell. (Id. at ¶ 18). He hung himself and was
discovered and pronounced dead on the morning of December 1,
2013. (Id.).
Plaintiff
alleges that, throughout Mr. Holland's detention,
defendants “ignored Mr. Holland's mental condition
and failed to provide any care or take any precautions to
prevent Mr. Holland from taking his own life.”
(Id. at ¶ 19). She alleges Mr. Holland
“was denied his prescription medications and was not
put on suicide watch at any time prior to his death.”
(Id. at ¶ 17).
Plaintiff
further alleges that the “deliberate indifference to
Mr. Holland's medical and mental health needs was in
furtherance of and consistent with the policies” for
which then-Sheriff Glanz and Armor had responsibility.
(Id. at ¶ 20). Plaintiff lists three respects
in which the policies were inadequate. First, the defendants
allegedly “failed to promulgate and implement adequate
medical and mental health policies responsive to the serious
medical needs” of inmates. (Id. at ¶ 21).
Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that “there were
deficient guidelines in place as to the standard of care
specific to inmates' mental health needs.”
Id. This allegedly constitutes a failure to train
and failure to supervise the nurses at the Tulsa County Jail.
Id. Plaintiff also alleged “failures to
conduct appropriate psychiatric assessments, create and
implement appropriate mental health treatment plans, [and]
promptly evaluate and transfer to an appropriate psychiatric
treatment facility” inmates who are a potential danger
to themselves. (Id. at ¶ 22).
Plaintiff
secondly alleges that “the communication policies and
procedures for inmates seeking medical treatment” were
“inadequate to ensure the timely assessment and
treatment of inmates with serious medical needs.”
(Id. at ¶ 23). Plaintiff alleges that Armor and
the Sheriff's Department had “a pattern and
practice of understaffing” the medical treatment
facility. Id. The Sheriff's Department allegedly
promoted “a policy of having too few personnel on duty
at the Tulsa County Jail” to provide adequate treatment
for inmates' serious medical and mental health needs.
Id. Plaintiff thirdly alleges that the Tulsa County
Sheriff “restricts [Armor] to very tight budgetary
restrictions, creating substantial risks to inmate
safety.” (Id. at ¶ 24).
Plaintiff
is suing all defendants under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for cruel
and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth and
Fourteenth Amendments. She is additionally suing Armor for
negligence.
III.
Claim under § 1983 against Mr. Glanz in his individual
capacity
Mr.
Glanz argues that he cannot be liable under § 1983
because he is entitled to qualified immunity and lacked
actual knowledge of Mr. Holland's risk of suicide. In a
§ 1983 action, an official sued in his individual
capacity is entitled to qualified immunity unless he both
violated a constitutional right and that right was clearly
established. Cox v. Glanz, 800 F.3d 1231, 1246 (10th
Cir. 2015). To be clear, “when confronting individual
capacity § 1983 claims, ” a court's
“focus must always be on the defendant-on the
. . . injury he inflicted or caused to be inflicted,
and on his motives.” Id. at 1254
(quoting Porro v. Barnes, 624 F.3d 1322, 1327 (10th
Cir. 2010)) (emphasis in the original). Therefore, Mr. Glanz
is entitled to qualified immunity unless his individual
conduct deprived Mr. Holland of a constitutional right and
that right was clearly established.
Mr.
Glanz supports his argument that he is entitled to qualified
immunity by arguing that there is no clearly established
right to be screened for suicidal tendencies. (Doc. 15 at
5-7). Although Plaintiff does indeed mention the failure to
provide a mental health evaluation, Plaintiff's §
1983 claim is primarily based not on a failure to screen for
suicide but on a failure to provide adequate medical care,
inclusive of mental health care. (Doc. 2 at ¶¶
29‒30) (“Defendants failed to provide an adequate
mental health evaluation, timely or adequate treatment and/or
adequate supervision . . . . [F]ailure to provide Mr. Holland
with adequate and timely medical or psychiatric care . . .
[constitutes] deliberate indifference . . . .”).
Plaintiff specifically alleges that Mr. Holland's
arresting officers and officials at the Tulsa County Jail
were informed that he was suicidal. (Id. at ¶
14). She further alleges that she “made several
attempts to give Mr. Holland” his medications but
“each attempt was refused by Tulsa County Jail
officials despite warnings that abrupt discontinuance”
could increase his suicidal tendencies (Id. at
¶ 16(c)). Additionally, Plaintiff alleges that Mr.
Holland's ex-wife told jail officials that he was
suicidal but the officials did nothing to protect him.
(Id. at ¶ 16(d)). These allegations make it
clear that Plaintiff's § 1983 claim is based on jail
officials repeatedly refusing to give Mr. Holland his
medication even as they knew he was suicidal.
“[C]laims
based on a jail suicide are considered and treated as claims
based on the failure of jail officials to provide medical
care for those in their custody.” Barrie v. Grand
Cty., 119 F.3d 862, 866 (10th Cir. 1997). The Tenth
Circuit recognizes that prison officials are required to
provide adequate medical care under the Eighth Amendment.
Tafoya v. Salazar, 516 F.3d 912, 916 (10th Cir.
2008). Eighth Amendment protection extends to pretrial
detainees under the Fourteenth Amendment. Martinez v.
Beggs, 563 F.3d 1082, 1088 (10th Cir. 2009) (quoting
Garcia v. Salt Lake Cty., 768 F.2d 303, 307 (10th
Cir. 1985)).
However,
in order for Plaintiff's suit against Mr. Glanz to
succeed against his claim of qualified immunity, it is not
sufficient that a clearly established right was violated by
just anyone. Mr. Glanz specifically must have violated that
right. Plaintiff provides two rationales under which Mr.
Glanz might have contributed to Mr. Holland's denial of
medical care. First, she alleges personal involvement on his
part. Second, she argues under a theory of supervisory
liability that Mr. Glanz “promulgated, created,
implemented and/or possessed responsibility for” the
“customs, practices and policies” that resulted
in Mr. Holland's death. (Doc. 2 at ¶ 34).
For
personal involvement on Mr. Glanz's part, Plaintiff
states that “Defendants knew or reasonably should have
known there was a strong likelihood that Mr. Holland was in
danger of serious personal harm and that he would try to harm
himself.” (Id. at ¶ 28). She further
states that “Defendants failed to provide . . . timely
or adequate treatment.” (Id. at ¶ 29).
These allegations are insufficient to state a claim against
Mr. Glanz. Although a court must accept all the well-pleaded
factual allegations of a complaint as true, a complaint still
must provide “more than labels and conclusions, and a
formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of
action.” See Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555.
Plaintiff's allegations about Mr. Glanz's personal
involvement are merely conclusory. Nowhere in her Amended
Petition does Plaintiff allege that Mr. Glanz himself had any
personal knowledge of Mr. Holland at all. Rather, she alleges
that “the arresting officers” and “Tulsa
County Jail officials” were made aware of ...