Arenas v. Georgia Department of Corrections et al
Filing
63
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 53 Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff's claims against Defendant Williams under 42 U.S.C. 1983, Defendants' motion is granted. Plaintiff claims for deliberate indifference against Defendant Williams based on having a policy of deliberate indifference to the medical needs of inmates and failing to train his staff are dismissed. Signed by Judge William T. Moore, Jr on 2/20/18. (wwp)
THE T'NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
fgE SOUTI|ERN DISTRICT OI' GEORGTA
SAVANNAH DIVISION
MARA ARENAS,individually
I
and
in her capacity as heir and
)
)
rFnrpqFnr,ar_
\
irra
! v t , ! v v u I l
Ri -h.e r.{
^f
fh6
Fsirr
a
.\f
r:r/rr.
CASENO. CV416-320
GEORGIA DEPARTMENT
OF
C O R R E C T I O N SG E O R G ] A
,
CORRECTIONAL
HEALTH CARE, MARK
SHELBY, in his indlvidual
capacity,
S T A N L E YW I L L I A M S , i n
l'r-
i n-1i..
^-n-^i
\ , a u < t u - L !r \ r /
i - 1 ,u, o r
a1
u. s. otSTFlcT
COURT
soulhern
Dlstrlct Ga.
of
FllodIn offlce
r_ l
o n r- .q
MARVINDICKSON,in his
i rr .,
, .
a * r lu ! i v ! u,u . l r ^ r
a
^-^^^1r.,
\-<1Pduf r-y,
Defendants,
Before
53.)
the
For the
PART and
Court
following
DENIED IN
against
Defendant
motion
.is
defiberate
having
of
respect
noLion
to
is
Dqfendants'
PART. With
Willrams
indifference
and
of
under
against
de.liberate
failing
Plaintiff's
G F " A N T E Do
r
to
respect
the
to
motion
to
42 U.S.C.
Dlsmiss.
is
S 1983,
Defendant
his
under
exLenL rhar
staff
the
s
cLaims
Defendants/
cfaims
Itilliarns
to
(Doc.
GRiNiITED
IN
Plaintiff,
Plaintiff's
indifference
train
clairns
Motion
Defendants,
reasons,
GRANTED. Accordingly,
a policy
inmates
is
the
for
based
medical
on
needs
ar:e DISMISSED. With
ADA and RA, Defendants'
Lhese cl a_ims are
premised
failure
on a
is
provide
lo
DENIED and Plaintiff's
that
Lhese claims
cIa im
brought
Corrections,
premised
agaj-nsL
Defendants'
Defendanc
proper
m e di c a . l
the
extent
proper
law negligence
stace
Department
oI
GRANTED nd the-se claims
a
motiOn is
respect
morjon
Lo provide
[ai]ure
Georgia
are
co any negligence
Defendant Georgia Correctional
provjde
ro
on a
remain to
E.o P.Iainr jff 's
respect
DISMISSED. Hoh,ever, with
aqainst
However, the
ADA and RA cfaims
are
accommodations. With
treacnent.
medical
Heafth
Lrearmenc,
clain
a failure
Care for
Defendancs,
brought
motion
js
DENIED,
BACKGROUND
This
death of
was
case
all
at
Smith State
relevant
Officer
John
a
sprinkfer
bed
rha
(Id.
rrrtrr.\..\qa<
nor
nf
Prison,
91 6.)
at
saw Tavara
ceiling
policy
State
was
of
At
ceIl.
r.lori
nn
Defendant
by
glSl7,
at
Williams
was the
to
a
(Id.
at
r
n a f a n ,,...J - ^ l - L :->
_, - _ tdll
to
tie
fire
warden
around
his
extinguisher
q.2I .)
ceLf
14. )
1O:50 pm,
approximately
Lo ent.er a prlsoner's
r-an
disc ipline,
coufd
of
rasked
is
*
Court
officers
Pursuant
Correccions
not
.\e
-^-ri ' i^h
duties .
court
Ithe
state
-Iaw corc
claims.
B. Ante Litem Notice
Next,
cfaims
Defendants
should
contend
be dismissed
was deficient.
Pursuant
potenLjal
claim
with
torL
notice
prior
to
to
che Risk ManagenenL Division
Services
and "the
because plaintiff,
O.C.c.A
againsL
filing
staLe
plaintiff.
that
the
suit,
of
state
s
s ante
S 50-21-26,
staLe
This
must
notice
21
the
corc
l-item notice
a party
provide
rhe
with
a
sraLe
must be mail-ed to
Lhe Depart.ment of
government enLiLy,
law
A d mi n i s t . r a t i v e
acc or
omissions
of
which
are
Ientity]
as
asserted
O.C.G.A. S 50-21-26 (2) . The notice
the
basis
of
the
claim. "
must provide:
(A) The name of the state government entity,
the acts
or omi-ssions of which are asserted as the basis of the
(B) The time of the transaction
clairn;
or occurrence
(C) The place of the
out of which the loss arosei
(D) The nature of the _loss
transaction
or occurrence;
(E) The amount of the foss claimed; and (F)
suffered,'
The acts or omi-ssions which caused the foss,
O.C.G.A.
S 50-21-26(5).
.Litem notice,
" Is]trict
rs
Kim v.
fn
required. "
Dep't
this
case,
both
against
Defendants
PIajntifI
failed
detaifed
argue
compliance
in
suffj ciency
with
of
an ante
S 50-21-26 (a)
O.C.G.A.
Transp. ,
of
235 Ga. App.
Defendant contends that
480,
to
rn
the
comp-Ly with
O.C,c.A.
S 50-21*26
s
ante
the
notice
two
ways.
in
litem
notice
481,
potential
subsequently
to
respect
to
Defendant
notice
was
maif
deficient
Defendant
GDOC of
officers.
After
Litem notrce
in
defendant
failed
it
claims
based
review,
deficient
the
with
28
First,
to
on
that
Court
respect
notice
finds
and
GCHC. With
pfaintlff's
negligence
to
with
properly
to
as
L\ Jo -iLdr e. .n t i fIv! J ,
L
\ E L
Defendant
the
because
Defendants
litem
contend
failed
cfaims
deficient
failed
ante
notice
that
because
careful
was only
her
GDoc/ Defendants
any
tort
requirements
was
na€ann=nt GCHC because Plaintiff
a
state
G C H C a n d G D O Cm u s t b e d i s n i s s e d
Plaintifff
that
GCHC as
the
50, 52 (1998).
s10 s.E.2d
In
assessing
that
notify
of
the
its
dnre
Defendant GDOC.
l
First,
Defendants
case was deficient
not mailed
695,
has
Court
found
using
the
held
the
jncompleLe
and,
Id.
requires
ante
litem
that
there
to
rhF
of
354-55,
however,
litem
of
tiLem
claim.
609 S.E.2d
che Georgia
requirements
Supreme
should
consrrucLion,,
Juvenife
was
identify
An-a
349,
Ga. Deprt
improperly
responsible
Id.
al
at
822,
Justice,
senr
not
of
be
cne
282 Ga. 822,
the
132,
Lo the
not.ice
is,
Georgia
at
at
825
agency asserLed
responsible.,.).
prejudice
the
to
29
the
an anLe
ro
norify
(" [T]he
to
uo her
be,
of
The court
plaintiff
the
rise
instead
Department
730-31.
because
attempLed
was sufficient,
no
the
evenLS giving
653 S.E.2d
a copy of
Transportation
653 S.E.2d
appropriately
acrually
was
agency.
was sufficient
knowledge of
noLjce
aqency thac
conv
"hyper-Lechnical
notice
theref o.re.
agency.
a failure
Lo rhe Georgia Departn'ent of
Justice.
that
that
plajntift,s
ante
this
129, 132 (200?).
actual-ly
Juvenile
in
Defendant GCHC
t'o a
C _ g n u n 1 1 g ga p f a i n L i f f
.
I iLem noLice
af
a
identlfy
fatal
same time,
the
Cummings v.
824, 653 s.E.2d
In
Ac rhe
that
not
send
may be
notice
D e f e n d a n t G C H Cb e c a u s e i t
true
and
fitem
ante
27L Ga. App.
Coweta CLy.,
j nte.rpreted
statute,
defendant
(2005).
700
to
js
It
defendanL
chat
See Camp v.
respect
defendant.
appropriace
to
with
the
D e f e n d a n t G C H Ca n d d i d
to
as a possible
notice
argue that
had
complainL
Lhe correct
plain
language
rather
than
the
In determjning
rhat
rhe
court
relied
Department
on the
of
fact
Juvenile
Justice
based on Lhe plaintiff's
R i q^k
v
I hA
134,
at
653 S.E,2d
state
Division
not
fater
CCHC woulo
be
an
A r - r - n r r lr r , I r z
-hc
in
have
offered
.ner- i 'i r-
n-c-
[4^nA.]e'ntrn
-he
reorr;raman-s
reouest
fhc
nrr' nar
Court
that
thi s
Lo
to
Next,
deficient
Defendants
as
be
her
this
contend
Management
Defendant
a
f
defendanr.
Iitem
GCHC has
ante
As
suffered
Plainciff
in
fiten
a
ha.
RiSk
l^ia
ut
was
not
D ei e n d a n t
resulL,
Plaintiff's
rhe
any
asserted
notice
list
notice
Defendants
BeCaUSe
;6cnnrcih-.o
lv
Suf f icient
ante
and
Tt $/as
suit.
Additionally,
specifically
dismiss
r : l a i ' n s a o ^ i n s l - D e f e n d a n r G C H Ci s
an
rolice.
LhaL agency.
Court
bring
Pf aintif
rr -^-ified
co
that
fajlure
t.he noLice
ancl
and setLle
Risk
jo-Ln as
Lo
nrovide
nf
the
to
Defendant
I ank
believed
finds
due Lo her
mail
that
hrz
.he
' f; ed
n.l
.Learned that
that
f o
rraq
rdi r-e
1-hir
the
deficjenL
argument
intent
S 50-21-26.
O.C.c.A.
livisinir
aoe-r-iFs
noLice/
or
no
because
handl ing GTCA clajms,
both
parLy
f i nds
CourL
accordance with
lv
invesLjgate
further
appropriare
FhF
n n r r n l i a , - l r " r i i -F
her
Plaintiff
that
a-p
LqeLry
to
notified
a n d D e f e n d a n L G D O Co f
untll
-^-ri
827,
at. 826-21 , 653 S.E.2d at 733.
Pfaintiff
case,
^--
aPPr\JP'
opporuuniry
]d.
claim.
-
that
concfuded
court
Lasked with
entity
had a sufficient
this
the
waJ
l-l'tvrrrurr
primary
the piaintil['s
In
^r'
l .4ua rnua jo et mee nLf
.
l Lr L rr
agency was tne
the
Moreover,
-Ld. at
notice.
inaccuraLe
GCHC
DeIendanrs'
state
faw
tort
denied.
that
the
L o D e I e n d a n L G D O Cb e c a u s e i r
30
ante
did
fitem
notice
was
not
proper-ly
put
EhaL agency on notice
of
negl Lgence. As dj scussed
the
state
]oss."
on notice
O.C.G.A.
notice
for
constituted
in
procedures
of
the
cited
Plajntjff
"a
towards
inIIicced
fitem
would
had
negligence
in
a
^€
v!
o
387
212 Ga. 624,
mind,
in
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?