Macaulay et al v. Camden County, Georgia et al

Filing 56

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 48 Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff's claim is dismissed with regards to Kings Bay. The Court elects to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any remaining state law claims asserted by Plaintiffs. The ninety day discovery period commences today. Signed by Chief Judge Lisa G. Wood on 3/13/2012. (csr)

3n the Vniteb Atatto flttrttt Court
for the Asutorn Marta of 4eorgia
3runs'bittk fltbtton
TARA SAVANAH MACAULAY, as
natural child of Eric N. Macaulay,
deceased, and as Adminstratrix of the
Estate of Eric N. Macauslay, and
TAYLOR MACAULAY, as natural child
of Eric N. Macaulay, deceased
Plaintiffs,
vs.
CAMDEN COUNTY, GEORGIA, CITY
OF ST. MARY'S GEORGIA,
JESS MARTINEZ, M.D., and
KINGS MAY COMMUNITY HOSPITAL,
INC., a/ida SOUTHEAST GEORGIA
HEALTH SYSTEM, CAMDEN CAMPUS,
and JOHN DOE 1-6,
Defendants.

*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

CV 211-011

ORDER
Presently before the Court is Defendant Kings Bay Community
Hospital, Inc. Trading As Southeast Georgia Health System/Camden
Campus's ("Kings Bay") Motion for Summary Judgment. Dkt. No.
48. For the reasons stated below, Kings Bay's motion is GRANTED

in part and DENIED in part.

AO 72A
(Rev. 8/82)

BACKGROUND'
This case arises from conduct related to the death of Eric
Macaulay. On January 27, 2009, Eric Macaulay consumed a large
quantity of narcotics while at his father's home. His father
called 911 and emergency medical personnel were dispatched to
the home. Once on the scene, the emergency personnel called a
medical doctor at Kings Bay. The doctor made no recommendations
about treatment or whether further examination was necessary.
The emergency personnel refused to transport Eric Macaulay to
the hospital. Several hours later Eric Macaulay's father made
another 911 call, stating that he believed his son was dead.
Emergency personnel responded, but were unable to resuscitate
Eric. Eric Macaulay was pronounced dead soon thereafter.
Plaintiffs, the children of Eric Macaulay, filed this suit
on January, 28, 2011. Dkt. No. 1. Plaintiffs' Complaint
asserts one federal claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for denial of
essential medical care and state law claims. All but one of the
Defendants moved to dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint, arguing that
Plaintiffs had failed to state a claim upon which relief could
be granted. This Court granted those motions with regards to
the § 1983 claim. The Court emphasized that in order to
adequately set forth a § 1983 claim for denial of essential

1

AO 72A
(Rev 8/82)

The facts of this case are set out in greater detail in the court's Order
resolving earlier pretrial motions. Dkt. No. 47.
2

medical care, a plaintiff must show a "special relationship"
between the deceased and the Defendants as described in Wideman
v. Shallowford Cmty. Hosp., 826 F.2d 1030 (11th Cir. 1987).
Dkt. No. 47. The Court held that no special relationship
existed as to the Defendants who moved for dismissal, and
therefore, Plaintiffs failed to state a claim under § 1983
against those Defendants.
The Court further noted that the only Defendant that did
not file a motion to dismiss or join in the motions was Kings
Bay. The Court granted Kings Bay and Plaintiffs additional time
to submit briefs on whether the federal claim against Kings Bay
should also be dismissed. The Court reserved ruling on the
state law claims until the parties provided additional briefing
on the § 1983 claim.
The additional briefing has been submitted, and the Court
now evaluates Kings Bay's arguments for summary judgment. The
Court also addresses Defendants' arguments on Plaintiffs' state
law claims.
DISCUSSION
I. Section 1983 Claim
Kings Bay argues that Plaintiffs' federal claim against it
should be dismissed for the same reasons the claim was dismissed
as to the other Defendants. Kings Bay argues that the Court's
previous holding - that the Plaintiff has not shown a special

AO 72A
(Rev. 8182)

3

relationship - is equally, if not more, applicable to Kings Bay.
Kings Bay points out that none of its personnel exercised
physical control over Eric Macaulay, and importantly, no Kings
Bay personnel were present at the Macaulay home. Kings Bay also
argues that if the Court decides to dismiss Plaintiffs' federal
claim against Kings Bay, the Court should, nevertheless,
exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' state law
claims. Kings Bay argues that judicial economy and fairness
militate in favor of the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction,
even if all the federal claims are dismissed. Kings Bay also
argues that the Plaintiffs have failed to adequately state any
state law claims.
Plaintiffs respond by arguing that a special relationship
existed because the "Decedent was within and/or under [Kings
Bay's] custody or control at the time of the asserted
constitutional deprivation." Dkt. No. 50, at 11. Plaintiffs
further argue that emergency personnel called Kings Bay to
obtain medical advice, and that because the call occurred while
Eric Macaulay was incapacitated, he necessarily "fell within the
custody and care of [Kings Bay]." Id.
Plaintiffs' version of the facts does not demonstrate that
Kings Bay was in custody of Eric Macaulay. Plaintiffs' theory
is that a phone call to a hospital by first responders during a
911 response creates a custodial relationship between the
AO 72A
(Rev. 8/82)

4

hospital and the patient. Plaintiffs have pointed to no
authority indicating that such a tenuous connection creates a
custodial relationship. Eric Macaulay was unequivocally not in
the custody of Kings Bay on the night of his death.
Plaintiffs' custody argument is their only basis for
claiming that a special relationship existed for the purposes of
§ 1983 analysis. Accordingly, Plaintiffs have not established a
special relationship between Kings Bay and Eric Macaulay, and
therefore have not established a constitutional claim under §
1983. While the circumstances of Eric Macaulay's death are
undeniably tragic, the circumstances do not constitute a
constitutional deprivation. Plaintiffs' federal claim against
Kings Bay is dismissed.

II. State Law Claims

Once a court has dismissed all claims over which it has
original jurisdiction, the court may decline to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over any remaining claims. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1367 (c) (3). Here, the court has dismissed Plaintiffs' single
federal claim, and only their state law claims remain.
Accordingly, the court may choose whether to exercise
supplemental over Plaintiffs' remaining state law claims. Raney
v. Allstate Ins. co., 370 F.3d 1086, 1089 (11th Cir. 2004)

AO 72A
(Rev. 8/82)

5

Here, the Court notes that the Plaintiffs' federal claim
failed for lack of a special relationship between the decedent
and the Defendants. Defendants argue, in part, that Plaintiffs'
state law claims require a physician-patient or provider-patient
relationship in order to succeed. Because the inquiries are
related, though not identical, the Court concludes that judicial
economy warrants resolving the state law claims in this forum.
Accordingly, the Court elects to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction over the state law claims.
Discovery in this matter was stayed pending resolution of
Plaintiffs' federal claims. Given the status of this matter, a
limited discovery and briefing period will be beneficial to the
resolution of Plaintiffs' remaining claims. Consequently, the
Court orders a ninety (90) day discovery period. Following the
discovery period, Defendants will have an additional thirty (30)
days to file any pretrial motions. The Court will evaluate any
motions following the completion of the briefing period.

CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, Kings Bay's Motion for
Summary Judgment is GRANTED. Plaintiffs' federal claim is
dismissed with regards to Kings Bay. The Court elects to
exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any remaining state law

AO 72A
(Rev. 8/82)

6

claims asserted by Plaintiffs. The ninety (90) day discovery
period commences today.

SO ORDERED, this 13th day of March, 2012.

-0 1

^

LISA GODBEY W OD, CHIEF JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

AO 72A
(Rev. 8/82)

7