Smith v. Osceola County, Florida et al
Filing
33
ORDER granting 18 and 19 motions to dismiss and providing leave to amend the complaint. Signed by Judge Gregory A. Presnell on 3/11/2014. (JU)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION
CHRISTINA SMITH,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No: 6:13-cv-1797-Orl-31GJK
OSCEOLA COUNTY, FLORIDA,
REESHEMAH TAYLOR, SEAN PARKS
and CYNTHIA DREILING,
Defendants.
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Defendants Reeshemah Taylor, Sean Parks, and Cynthia
Dreiling’s (collectively “Officers”) Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint (Doc. 18)
(“Officers’ Motion”) and Defendant Osceola County’s (“County”) Motion to Dismiss the Amended
Complaint (Doc. 19) (“County’s Motion”) and the Plaintiff’s responses to the Motions (Docs. 23,
24 (respectively)).
I.
Background
This case is brought on behalf of the estate of Russell Leigh Smith (“Smith”), who
committed suicide while in custody at one of the County’s correctional facilities. The suit asserts a
claim for wrongful death against the County and violations of Smith’s constitutional rights under
42 U.S.C. § 1983 against all Defendants. The allegations, assumed to be true, make clear that on
February 18, 2012 Smith was in custody at an Osceola County correctional facility, and that on that
date he committed suicide. Allegedly, the Defendants knew or had reason to know of Smith’s risk
of suicide. However, beyond the unelaborated assertion that there was a history of suicides or
attempted suicides in the Osceola County Jail (Doc. 13 ¶ 19) the Amended Complaint gives no
indication how or why Defendants should have known of Smith’s risk of suicide. The Officers’ and
County’s Motions assert that the matter must be dismissed because, among other reasons, the
Plaintiff has not alleged cognizable claims.
II.
Standard
In ruling on a motion to dismiss, the Court must view the complaint in the light most
favorable to the Plaintiff, see, e.g., Jackson v. Okaloosa County, Fla., 21 F.3d 1531, 1534 (11th Cir.
1994), and must limit its consideration to the pleadings and any exhibits attached thereto. Fed. R.
Civ. P. 10(c); see also GSW, Inc. v. Long County, Ga., 999 F.2d 1508, 1510 (11th Cir. 1993). The
Court will liberally construe the complaint’s allegations in the Plaintiff’s favor.
Jenkins v.
McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969). However, “conclusory allegations, unwarranted factual
deductions or legal conclusions masquerading as facts will not prevent dismissal.” Davila v. Delta
Air Lines, Inc., 326 F.3d 1183, 1185 (11th Cir. 2003).
In reviewing a complaint on a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6), “courts must be mindful that the Federal Rules require only that the complaint contain ‘a
short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.’ ” U.S. v. Baxter
Intern., Inc., 345 F.3d 866, 880 (11th Cir. 2003) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)). This is a liberal
pleading requirement, one that does not require a plaintiff to plead with particularity every element
of a cause of action. Roe v. Aware Woman Ctr.for Choice, Inc., 253 F.3d 678, 683 (11th Cir. 2001).
However, a plaintiff’s obligation to provide the grounds for his or her entitlement to relief requires
more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action
will not do. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 554-555 (2007). The complaint’s
factual allegations “must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level,” Id. at 555,
-2-
and cross “the line from conceivable to plausible.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 129 S. Ct.
1937, 1950-1951 (2009).
III.
Analysis
A. § 1983 Claims Against Officers and County
Counts II – V 1 allege deprivations of Smith’s rights against the individual defendants and
the County. The Amended Complaint alleges that Smith was deprived of his rights based on the
deliberate indifference of the Officers and the County.
As to the Officers:
To establish liability for a prisoner’s suicide under section 1983, “the plaintiff must
show that the jail official displayed ‘deliberate indifference’ to the prisoner’s taking
of his own life.” Cook, 402 F.3d at 1115 (quoting Cagle v. Sutherland, 334 F.3d 980,
986 (11th Cir.2003) (per curiam)) (internal quotation mark omitted). The plaintiff
must prove that the official had subjective knowledge of a risk of serious harm and
disregarded that risk by conduct that constituted more than mere negligence. Snow
ex rel. Snow v. City of Citronelle, Ala., 420 F.3d 1262, 1268 (11th Cir.2005) (quoting
Cook, 402 F.3d at 1115). “[D]eliberate indifference requires that the defendant
deliberately disregard ‘a strong likelihood rather than a mere possibility that the selfinfliction of harm will occur.’ ” Cook, 402 F.3d at 1115 (quoting Cagle, 334 F.3d at
986) (emphasis omitted). “[T]he mere opportunity for suicide, without more, is
clearly insufficient to impose liability on those charged with the care of prisoners.”
Tittle v. Jefferson County Comm’n, 10 F.3d 1535, 1540 (11th Cir.1994) (en banc).
Gish v. Thomas, 516 F.3d 952, 954 (11th Cir. 2008). The allegations state that each of the Officers
“had actual and/or constructive notice that RUSSELL LEIGH SMITH was on the verge of suicide
or that suicide was imminent and/or the behavior of RUSSELL LEIGH SMITH, should have placed
1
The Amended Complaint asserts violations of Smith’s Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment
rights. The Fourteenth Amendment is applicable in suicide-in-custody cases involving pretrial
detainees while the Eighth Amendment is invoked in prisoner suicide cases. However, because the
matter can be decided upon the sufficiency of the deliberate indifference allegations, the Court need
not address under which amendment the claims must be brought. Tittle v. Jefferson Cnty. Comm’n,
10 F.3d 1535, 1539 (11th Cir. 1994) (noting that in suicide-in-custody cases, analysis of deliberate
indifference is same for either Eighth or Fourteenth Amendment violation).
-3-
Defendant on notice of this danger.” (Doc. 13 ¶¶ 38, 51, 64). However, the Amended Complaint
does not give any indication how the Officers were either actually noticed, or noticed through
Smith’s behavior of this danger. All it offers is the conclusory statement that they had notice.
As to the County, the Plaintiff’s Response asserts that the estate is proceeding on the theory
that County failed to properly train corrections personnel to supervise inmates at risk of suicide.
(Doc. 24 at 5).
To establish deliberate indifference, “a plaintiff must present some evidence that the
[county] knew of a need to train and/or supervise in a particular area and the [county]
made a deliberate choice not to take any action.” Gold v. City of Miami, 151 F.3d
1346, 1350 (11th Cir.1998). We have noted that “deliberate indifference has three
components: (1) subjective knowledge of a risk of serious harm; (2) disregard of that
risk; [and (3)] conduct that is more than mere negligence.” McElligott v. Foley, 182
F.3d 1248, 1255 (11th Cir.1999) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Williams v. DeKalb Cnty., 327 F. App’x 156, 160-61 (11th Cir. 2009). Aside from an unexplained
assertion that “[t]here has been a history of suicides and/or attempted suicides of inmates at the
Osceola County Jail” (Doc. 13 ¶ 19), there is no explanation as to how the County should have
known of a need to properly train and/or supervise corrections officers regarding inmate suicides at
the Osceola County Jail. 2
Plaintiff alleges in paragraph 77 of the Amended Complaint that the County demonstrated
its indifference by: (1) failing to equip county staff to intervene, supervise, or manage the protection
of inmates; (2) failing to train correction officers to evaluate and protect inmates at risk of harm or
suicide; and (3) not establishing a protocol to evaluate inmates from injury or the risk of suicide.
Yet, an alleged history of suicides at some unspecified time and place is insufficient to bring this
case across the line from conceivable to plausible. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 680.
2
The Plaintiff identifies the Osceola County Correctional Facility located at 402 Simpson
Road, Kissimmee, Florida, as the location where Smith was held.
-4-
B. Wrongful Death Claim Against County
As to Count I, the claim for wrongful death against the County:
[T]he plaintiff has the burden of proving that the “wrongful act, negligence, default,
or breach of contract or warranty” caused the death. § 768.19, Fla. Stat. (2011). The
Florida Supreme Court has recognized that “harm is ‘proximate’ in a legal sense if
prudent human foresight would lead one to expect that similar harm is likely to be
substantially caused by the specific act or omission in question. In other words,
human experience teaches that the same harm can be expected to recur if the same
act or omission is repeated in a similar context.”
50 State Sec. Serv., Inc. v. Giangrandi, 3D11-3329, 2013 WL 6212039 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. Nov. 27,
2013) (quoting McCain v. Fla. Power Corp., 593 So.2d 500, 503 (Fla.1992)). Accordingly, the
County may only be liable insofar as the death was reasonably foreseeable. The Amended Complaint
does not set forth anything other than conclusory allegations with regards to how the County may
have had knowledge of a danger of Smith’s suicide. Accordingly, the claim for wrongful death has
been insufficiently pled. Smith ex rel Ashley v. Brevard Cnty., Florida, 6:06-CV-715ORL31JGG,
2006 WL 2355583, at *6 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 14, 2006) (noting that conclusory allegations fail to
establish that decedent’s suicide was reasonably foreseeable for wrongful death claim and
dismissing claims) opinion amended on reh’g on other grounds sub nom. Smith v. Brevard Cnty.,
Florida, 6:06CV715 ORL31JGG, 2006 WL 2507975 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 29, 2006).
It is therefore,
-5-
ORDERED that the Officers’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 18) and the County’s Motion to
Dismiss (Doc. 19) are GRANTED, the case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The
Plaintiff shall have fourteen (14) days from the date of this Order to serve and file a Second
Amended Complaint.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, Orlando, Florida on March 11, 2014.
Copies furnished to:
Counsel of Record
Unrepresented Party
-6-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?