Grochowski et al v. Clayton County, Georgia et al

Filing 57

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 47 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. Signed by Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr on 2/11/2016. (ss)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION
DONALD GROCHOWSKI
as a representative administrator of the
estate of Kenneth Grochowski,
deceased, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.

CIVIL ACTION FILE
NO. 1:14-CV-2586-TWT

CLAYTON COUNTY, GEORGIA
is sued through its Chair Jeffrey E.
Turner, and Commissioners in their
official capacity, and through the
Sheriff Kemuel Kimbrough, in his
official capacity, individually and
jointly, et al.,
Defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER

This is a civil rights action. It is before the Court on the Defendants’ Motion to
Dismiss [Doc. 47]. For the reasons stated below, the motion to dismiss is GRANTED
in part and DENIED in part.

T:\ORDERS\14\Grochowski\mtdtwt.wpd

I. Background
Twenty year old William Alexander Brooks was arrested on July 31, 2012, at
around 10:30PM.1 He was charged with theft by receiving stolen property, using a
false name, driving on a suspended license, and safety belt violations.2 He was
transported to the Clayton County Jail.3 Brooks’ criminal history included at least two
arrests for violent offenses within the previous six months, one of which resulted in
a conviction.4 Brooks was also held for violation of his probation on a Florida
burglary charge.5 At the jail, he was initially housed in segregation from August 1,
2012, to August 2, 2012.6 On August 2, 2012, Officer Baker classified Brooks as a
High Medium Risk Inmate.7 Then, on August 3, 2012, Officer Brown moved Brooks
out of segregation into the general population.8

1

Compl. ¶ 17.

2

Id. ¶ 18.

3

Id. ¶ 17.

4

Id. ¶ 25.

5

Id. ¶ 24.

6

Id. ¶ 21.

7

Id. ¶ 22.

8

Id. ¶ 26.

T:\ORDERS\14\Grochowski\mtdtwt.wpd

-2-

On August 8 or 9, the Clayton County Jail received notification that Brooks had
an active warrant in Henry County, Georgia, for contempt of court relating to child
support obligations.9 After Brooks was notified of the warrant, he began to display
erratic behavior.10 The Plaintiffs allege that some of the Defendants, specifically
Sheriff Kimbrough, Watkins, Major Sowell, Lieutenant Johnson, Sergeant Love,
Officer Smith, Officer Woolf, Officer Brown, Officer Baker, and Officer McKibbons
observed Brooks’ erratic behavior.11 Additionally, between August 11 and August 14,
Brooks’ family members notified personnel at the Clayton County Jail that he was a
threat to himself and others and needed to be kept in segregation.12
Kenneth Grochowski, the Plaintiffs’ decedent, was arrested on August 8, 2012,
at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport.13 He was held on a bench warrant
for failure to appear related to a 2007 DUI charge in Illinois.14 Initially, Grochowski’s
physical health assessment revealed hypertension, and he was referred to the chronic

9

Id. ¶ 28.

10

Id. ¶ 29.

11

Id. ¶ 31.

12

Id. ¶ 32.

13

Id. ¶ 36.

14

Id. ¶¶ 34-35, 37.

T:\ORDERS\14\Grochowski\mtdtwt.wpd

-3-

care clinic.15 On August 10, Officer Baker reclassified Grochowski, and he was moved
to Housing Unit Six Section 2 Cell 610.16 On August 11, Officer McKibbons moved
Brooks into Housing Unit Six.17 By August 14, Brooks and Grochowski were housed
in the same cell.18
On August 14, Lieutenant Johnson was the watch commander for the night
team, Sergeant Love was the Housing Unit Sergeant for Unit Six, Officer Woolf was
the Control Officer for Unit Six, and Officer Smith was the runner for Unit Six.19 At
around 9:05PM, Officer Smith was conducting the pill call inside Housing Unit Six.20
Also around that time, Brooks repeatedly struck Grochowski until Grochowski was
unconscious.21 Brooks then dragged Grochowski to a metal toilet and submerged his

15

Id. ¶ 38.

16

Id. ¶ 39.

17

Id. ¶ 40.

18

Id. ¶ 41.

19

Id. ¶¶ 42-44.

20

Id. ¶ 46.

21

Id. ¶ 50.

T:\ORDERS\14\Grochowski\mtdtwt.wpd

-4-

face in the water, in an attempt to drown him.22 While Grochowski was face down in
the toilet, Brooks began waving and yelling at the cell door.23 No one responded.24
Eventually, Brooks told another inmate, Aaron Ford Lewis, “I think I just killed
this dude, man.”25 Lewis notified Officer Smith of the emergency and Brooks’
comment.26 Officer Smith exited Housing Unit Six without responding.27 Lewis went
to the second level, looked into the cell, and saw Grochowski on the floor with his
head hanging over the toilet.28 Lewis then again attempted to inform Officer Smith
about the situation.29 After several attempts by Lewis to explain the seriousness of the
emergency, Officer Smith finally went to Brooks and Grochowski’s cell.30 Once at the
cell, it took Officer Smith several attempts to get Sergeant Love’s attention in the

22

Id. ¶ 52.

23

Id. ¶ 59.

24

Id. ¶ 60.

25

Id. ¶ 62.

26

Id. ¶ 63.

27

Id.

28

Id. ¶ 65.

29

Id. ¶ 66.

30

Id.

T:\ORDERS\14\Grochowski\mtdtwt.wpd

-5-

control tower.31 Eventually, Sergeant Love remotely opened the cell door.32 Once
inside the cell, at approximately 9:30PM, Officer Smith radioed for paramedics.33
Grochowski was transported to Southern Regional Medical Center where he was
pronounced dead at 4:20AM on August 15, 2012.34
The Plaintiffs make various claims against Clayton County, numerous Clayton
County Jail officials, both in their official and individual capacities, and medical
providers who had contracts with the jail. Clayton County and the jail officials now
move to dismiss the claims against them.
II. Legal Standard
A complaint should be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) only where it appears that
the facts alleged fail to state a “plausible” claim for relief.35 A complaint may survive
a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, however, even if it is “improbable” that
a plaintiff would be able to prove those facts; even if the possibility of recovery is

31

Id. ¶ 67.

32

Id.

33

Id. ¶ 68.

34

Id. ¶¶ 68-69.

35

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009); Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).

T:\ORDERS\14\Grochowski\mtdtwt.wpd

-6-

extremely “remote and unlikely.”36 In ruling on a motion to dismiss, the court must
accept the facts pleaded in the complaint as true and construe them in the light most
favorable to the plaintiff.37 Generally, notice pleading is all that is required for a valid
complaint.38 Under notice pleading, the plaintiff need only give the defendant fair
notice of the plaintiff’s claim and the grounds upon which it rests.39
III. Discussion
Sheriff Kimbrough, Chief Deputy Watkins, Major Sowell, Captain Samuel
Smith, and Sergeant Love move to dismiss the claims against them in their official
capacities. They argue that they are entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity
because they were acting as arms of the state. The Eleventh Circuit has held that
sheriffs are entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity in the context of jail
administration, stating that “a sheriff’s authority and duty to administer the jail in his

36

Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 556 (2007).

37

See Quality Foods de Centro America, S.A. v. Latin American
Agribusiness Dev. Corp., S.A., 711 F.2d 989, 994-95 (11th Cir. 1983); see also
Sanjuan v. American Bd. of Psychiatry & Neurology, Inc., 40 F.3d 247, 251 (7th Cir.
1994) (noting that at the pleading stage, the plaintiff “receives the benefit of
imagination”).
38

See Lombard’s, Inc. v. Prince Mfg., Inc., 753 F.2d 974, 975 (11th Cir.
1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1082 (1986).
39

See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (citing Twombly, 550

U.S. at 555).
T:\ORDERS\14\Grochowski\mtdtwt.wpd

-7-

jurisdiction flows from the State, not the County.”40 When the sheriff is entitled to
Eleventh Amendment immunity, his employees are also entitled to Eleventh
Amendment immunity for suits against them in their official capacities.41 The
Defendants concede, however, that the Sheriff and his deputies are not entitled to
sovereign immunity for claims based on an alleged failure to provide medical care.42
Here, the Plaintiffs make claims against the Sheriff and his deputies both related to jail
administration and to medical care. Pursuant to the Eleventh Circuit’s holdings in
Manders and Purcell, Sheriff Kimbrough is entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity
on the claims against him in his official capacity related to jail administration,
including those related to classification of inmates. Additionally, under Scruggs, the
Sheriff’s deputies are entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity on the claims against
them in their official capacities related to jail administration. Those claims should be
dismissed. The claims related to medical care, however, should not be dismissed. The
Defendants’ motion should therefore be granted in part and denied in part.

40

Purcell ex rel. Estate of Morgan v. Toombs Cnty., Ga., 400 F.3d 1313,
1325 (11th Cir. 2005) (quoting Manders v. Lee, 338 F.3d 1304, 1315 (11th Cir. 2003)
(en banc)).
41

Scruggs v. Lee, 256 F. App’x 229, 232 (11th Cir. 2007).

42

Reply Br. in Support of Defs.’ Mot. to Dismiss, at 7.

T:\ORDERS\14\Grochowski\mtdtwt.wpd

-8-

Clayton County also moves to dismiss the Plaintiffs’ claims against it. Clayton
County argues that the only claims the Plaintiffs make against it rely on liability of the
Sheriff and his deputies. In fact, the Plaintiffs allege that the county jail design is
defective, stopping the deputies from seeing any assaults.43 Additionally, the Plaintiffs
allege that Clayton County failed to provide adequate funding to staff the jail, leading
to the harm here.44 The Eleventh Circuit has noted that “Georgia counties have
obligations involving the jail structure and inmates’ food, clothing, and medical
necessities.”45 Georgia counties also must provide their sheriffs reasonable funds to
discharge their duties.46 To the extent that the Plaintiffs’ claims rely on the liability of
the Sheriff, they should be dismissed for the reasons discussed above. This Court
finds, however, that the Plaintiffs also make claims against Clayton County related to
the jail structure and failure to provide medical care. The Plaintiffs plead facts that,
if true, support a plausible claim against Clayton County here. Those claims should
not be dismissed.

43

Compl. ¶¶ 57, 99(d).

44

Compl. ¶ 106(g).

45

Manders v. Lee, 338 F.3d 1304, 1322 (11th Cir. 2003) (en banc).

46

Id. at 1323.

T:\ORDERS\14\Grochowski\mtdtwt.wpd

-9-

Sheriff Kimbrough, Chief Deputy Watkins, Major Sowell, Captain Smith, and
Lieutenant Johnson also move to dismiss the claims against them in their supervisory
capacities. In the Eleventh Circuit, “to hold a supervisor liable a plaintiff must show
that the supervisor either directly participated in the unconstitutional conduct or that
a causal connection exists between the supervisor’s actions and the alleged
constitutional violation.”47 When considering claims regarding the supervision of
pretrial detainees, like the Plaintiffs’ decedent here, “[a] prison official’s deliberate
indifference to a known, substantial risk of serious harm to an inmate violates the
[Fourteenth] Amendment.”48 A showing of deliberate indifference requires “(1)
subjective knowledge of a risk of serious harm; (2) disregard of that risk; (3) by
conduct that is more than gross negligence.”49 The official must not only be aware of
the substantial risk, he must react to it in an objectively unreasonable manner.50 In
order to alert a supervisor to a substantial risk of serious harm, there must be
“evidence of widespread and flagrant abuse.”51 A single, isolated, past incident does

47

Keith v. DeKalb Cnty., Ga., 749 F.3d 1034, 1047-48 (11th Cir. 2014).

48

Id. at 1047.

49

Id.

50

Id.

51

Id. at 1052.

T:\ORDERS\14\Grochowski\mtdtwt.wpd

-10-

not meet that standard.52 Here, the Plaintiffs allege only one prior incident where an
emergency call button was deactivated.53 Because one incident is not enough to show
knowledge of a substantial risk of harm, the supervisors here cannot be said to have
knowledge of that risk. Such lack of knowledge precludes a showing of a causal
connection between the supervisors’ actions and those of their subordinates. If,
however, the Plaintiffs show that a supervisor was involved in the constitutional
violation on his own, a claim may also stand. Here, the Plaintiffs plead facts leading
to a plausible claim for relief against the supervisors. Specifically, the Plaintiffs plead
that the supervisory defendants, with the exception of Captain Smith, observed
Brooks acting erratically, but left him in general population anyway.54 If true,
observation of erratic behavior could indicate a substantial risk of serious harm to the
supervisors. It is also plausible that given the nature of the erratic behavior, failing to
put Brooks in a cell by himself could be objectively unreasonable. The motion to
dismiss the claims against the supervisory defendants, except for those against Captain
Smith, should be denied. Because the Plaintiffs make no allegation that Captain Smith
observed Brooks’ erratic behavior or in any other way participated in any

52

Id. at 1051-52.

53

Compl. ¶ 106(b).

54

Id. ¶ 31.

T:\ORDERS\14\Grochowski\mtdtwt.wpd

-11-

constitutional violations, the claims against Captain Smith in his supervisory capacity
should be dismissed.
The Defendants also move to dismiss the Plaintiffs’ failure to train claim
against the supervisory defendants. A supervisor may be held liable for failing to train
his subordinates “only where the failure to train amounts to deliberate indifference to
the rights of persons with whom the [officers] come into contact.”55 The Plaintiffs
plead no facts supporting a failure to train claim. Additionally, there is no indication
from the complaint of any failure to train amounting to deliberate indifference. The
failure to train claim against Sheriff Kimbrough, Chief Deputy Watkins, Major
Sowell, Captain Smith, and Lieutenant Johnson should be dismissed.
Tameika Smith, P.E. McKibbons, L.G. Baker, A. Love, the estate of Lawrence
Woolf, and K.H. Brown also move to dismiss the claims against them in their
individual capacities. Again here, “[a] prison official’s deliberate indifference to a
known, substantial risk of serious harm to an inmate violates the [Fourteenth]
Amendment.”56 The Plaintiffs’ complaint alleges that Tameika Smith was notified that
Mr. Grochowski was in danger several times before responding to provide help.57

55

Keith, 749 F.3d at 1052.

56

Id. at 1047.

57

Compl. ¶¶ 63, 66.

T:\ORDERS\14\Grochowski\mtdtwt.wpd

-12-

Taking the facts as true and in the light most favorable to the Plaintiffs, this Court
finds that the complaint plausibly alleges a claim for a constitutional violation against
Tameika Smith for having knowledge that an inmate was in danger and not
responding. The claims against Tameika Smith should not be dismissed. The
complaint also alleges that all of the non-supervisory defendants observed Brooks
acting erratically.58 As with the supervisory defendants, this fact shows that the
Plaintiffs have stated a plausible claim for relief. The motion to dismiss the individual
defendants should be denied.
IV. Conclusion
For the reasons stated above, the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 47] is
GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
SO ORDERED, this 11 day of February, 2016.

/s/Thomas W. Thrash
THOMAS W. THRASH, JR.
United States District Judge

58

Id. ¶ 32.

T:\ORDERS\14\Grochowski\mtdtwt.wpd

-13-