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<i

(.1 .
d

subsequent

20L4, Tavara

operated

artempL ing

attached

his

and

On December 1,

Defendant Stanley

tha!

sheet

incarceration

C o r r e c t i , o n s ( * G D O C " ).

Prison.
Cafhoun

the

1Doc. 52.)

Smith

tines,

on the

Lhe prison's

Fnr

at

Department of

At

neck

from

Tavara. r

Richard

incarcerated

Ceorgia

,

arises

pursuanr !o

w_Lthout being

Ml ^ o _ iI ^ 6
L lolt

r^
LU

'
1,1_
J-Lsmt SS.

thrs Court will
a c c e p t a , Li f a c t u a l
alJegaLions jn the compJ int
a
j-n uhe light
as rrue and construe afl allegations
most favorable
q- Q E.3d
qrmnc^n
\/
r o P l a i - t i "-'n lf.
Timso.
Bl0,
8'/2 (llth
Cir.

iooer'.

T
I

a c c o m p a n je d o y a s u p e r v i s o r
Calhoun did

not

he notj fied

immediacely

hjs

Lieutenant

Marvin

and

(Id.

ar

minutes

unabfe

SheIby,

however,

took

no

Defendant

djd

down from

witnessed
unti I

Tavara

t1A

begin

f rorn

severe

commit

suicide.

Defendants

PIa:nrjtf's

mental
(Id.

were aware of

I i nrT her-k

The

"n.)

nn

oIticers

from

Loo_I to

31. )
that

Officer

the

bed

sheet

around

rn

Lota.l ,

pronounced dead.

(Id.

tl

and
15. )

Tavara's

had

previously

plaintiff
historV

ha,-.{rr

afsO

cut

nearly
Calhoun

his
(ld.

neck
at

at tl 14.)

Tavara suffered
attempted

contends
of

the

neck

quickly

time

the

hi <

were

jl

at

ce1l,

Tavara, s

amenaed complaj nr,

iflnesses
at

rr nrrl

open

increased

emergency medica L assistance.

Tavara was eventually

Accord ing ro

the

actuafly

to
two

to

appropriare

tje

to

officers

pressure

(td.

ceiling.

arrived

rjFulr+lrYlllJvvuj

o

r-

act-ion

Once inside

30.)

lrru i mnroncrl

have the

passed

the

officers

relieve

someone requested

9 13 3 . )

from

nor

Dickson

ordered

9l9l 28,

the

ne-k

Lhe

minutes

frfteen

at

that

immediately

because rhey
hjm

(ld.

Fim.-^

1r.r:-^

Lieutenant

eventual.Ly

Ta\/a rA'q

to

minutes

exLinguisher.

contends

^f

eight

fire

door,

s:n

cel I

Tava-ra's
the

Tava-ra's cell

inc

{t 22.)

at

from

and

on

lnstead,

hangjng

later

nressltre

aL 5l 35.)

Tavara

(Id. )

Pfaintiff

Officer

Sergeant Mark Shelby and

(Id.

aL

arrjved

higher,

Defendanc

!,26,)

intervene.

(Id.

D ef e n d a n t s
by radio.

Dickson,

observed

I ieuLenant or

intervene.

supervisors,

Defendanl- Shelby
.laLer

ranked

attempted

that

to
all

suicj-des

and mentaf

(Id. )

illnesses.

conrends

that

Despite
GDOC,

DeIendant

recorunendation

from

this
based

Defendant

awareness,
on

Plaintiff
improper

an

Geo.rgia Correcliona.l

Healrh

Care

I

("GCHC"),

did

(Id.

a c c o m , , n o d ao n s .
it
contends
in

a

sol rtary

c.Hr-

on

c

rh

Prison.

cell

(Id.

broughL

representative

that

from
oi

SheIby,
q?

|

intervening

agajnst

to

j noj vidua l
Rlchard

at

nrOvide
y!

Smlth

16Fan^5n,

State

policy

have

a

(Doc.

52 at

bought

and pract ice
lives

(2) "faifed

suit

constiLutr-ona-l
9l$ 48,

49.)

duLy

42 U.S.C.

against
42 U.S.C.
c laims

S 1983 as

prohibiring

train

the
his

co protecr

Pfaintiff

D e f e n d a n t s G D O Ca n d G C H C a l f e g i n g

to

also
(1)

as

In her

plaintiff

without

to

and

(Doc. 1.)

Tavara.

under

Arenas,

capaciry

r,?il j iams,

indifferent

and

Maria

and WifI lams pursuanE

save innates/

supervisors,'"

suicide. "

Defendant

C vD O r ^ - vn
!
vv v

mother,

PIaj ntj ff

adr.i.ci

a

Tavara's

of

Dickson,

"maintained

Lhey

exLinguisher

(Id. )

risk.

prisoners

ro

housed Tavara

fire

a

Def trn-l:n'

WiLh

her

complainr,

he was deliberately

their

that

both
the Estate

/nnr

(1)

he

2416,

amended

1ql?

to

known suicide

care

of

Defendants
€

29,

in

suit

second

access

COntraCLS

Plaint jff

Specif ically,

40. )

at 118.)

November

On

had

psychiarrjc

and

appropriate

G D O Ca n d G C H C r m p r o p e r l y

Lhat

-hat

wlth

Tavara

5l$ 39,

Lhe ceil ing -a

a.j-i.,,

healchcare

at

Defendants

that

spr inkler

provlde

noL

officers
assistance

subordinates
inmates

from

brought

suit

vrolaLions

of

the

l

American
("RA")

as

Defendants

reasonably

i^

Claims
rl^e

at
Act

rn

menral

(2)

and

and/or

of

the

to

wh;f e

in

ceorgia

intentional

qrrr r-irie

ononin.r

Act

refused

and

dj sabi l-iry

violations

negligence
Tarrara's

Rehabifitation

and

GCHC "failed

Tavara's

51 58);
"for

1r.qnrrnqe

(*ADA")

Act

GDOC and

accommodare
(Id.

custody/'
Tort

DisabiLities

with

State

mj-sconduct"

a.ramnr-

1fd.

at

5t 66. )
In
Plalntiff
under
to

motion

their

has faifed

42 U.S.C.

dismissed.
contend

of

his

of

actions

these

to

claims

should

for

(2)

claims

the

poljcy

not

his

or

prison's
alleged

failure

to

respond
r'hat

ro

ongo Lng

state
should

suicioes.

ViilI j ams

Defendant

is

D e I e n d a n L s C C H Ca n d C D O Cs h o u l d b e

clains

the

l-ack of

ent.itled

that

Defendant Wl-lfiams

be

under the ADA and RA, Defendants
dismissed

ADA and the

treatment;
immunity

ro
Iaw
be

C D O Ca r e a L s o e n c j L l e d t o

and

tort

RA do not
(3)

on these
claims,

dismissed
sovereign

(1)

because

show riraL Tavara was discriminated

disability;

Plaintiff's

against

contend

immuniry on Lhese c-Laims. Defendants also

respect

ro

cells

conrend

cLaims againsL

In

a n d G D O Ca r e
to

immediacely

qualified

these

has failed

inmates'

Defendants

argue Lhat all

Defendants

a claim

to

Alternac iveIy,
lo

state

enter

officers

entitled

to

disrniss,

S 1983 based on ejther

immediately

train

to

both

againsr

because

provlde

causes

Defendants

cLaims.

Defendants

because

P-laintiff

With

respecL

argue

Defendants

GCHC

that

GCHC and

immunity on these cfajms

and

i
PIainLifI
as

reo

f ail.eo

rr -eri

provide

to

eJ.aJ-F

hrz

a sufficient

notice

these

of

claims

lai4r.

ANEI,YSIS
I.

STANDARD OF' REVIEW

Eederaf
complaint

Rule

to

showjng thac
standard

of

t'a short

contain

Lhe pleader
B

Rufe

announces

but

allegations,'

it

and plain

entirfed

is

662,

550 U.S.

544,555

conc.lusions'
cause of
at

(2009)

678

or

action

wifl

"Nor

does

555).

assertionIs]'
(quoring

not

Twomb.ly. 550 U.S. at
survj ve a mol ion

sufficient

f actr-lal matter,

to

that

rel-ief

Twombly,

550

plausibility,

defendant

is
U. S.

the

the
is

"

to

accepted

plaintiff

court

Lo

liab-le

for

on
For

draw

must
the

jn

the misconduct

Id.

to

claim

a

(quoting

Id.
have

faciaf

content

inference

a1leqed."

"

musc conLain
'state

factual

reasonable

a

o r i g i n a . 7) .

to

claim

plead

and

'naked

tenders

face.'

a

'fabels

enhancement.'

true,

its

Twombly,

Twombfy, 550 U.S.

a complaint

as

v.

tqba-I,

eLements of

it

(a-lceration

djsmiss,

5 7 0)

the

if

factual

557)

plausibJ-e
at

suffice

the-

v.

offers

(qrroting

I4-.

factual

unadorned,

Corp.

of

'further

"To

"alfows

recitation

do.'

of

AtL

BeIl

pJeadIng

"lTlhe

Ashcroft

that

complaint

devoid

an

"A pleading

'formulaic

a

than

a

ci-aim

the

'detaifed

accusaLion. /'

(quoting

(2001)).

.re.Iief . "

require

demands more

reguires

sLarement of

to

not

does

delendanL-unlawfui ly-harmed-me
556 U.S.

I (a) (2)

Procedure

Civil

that

that

the

Sinaltrainaf

v.

Coca-Co1a Co.,

578 F.3d

omitted)

(quoLing

require

probability,

possibilicy
U,S.

678.

ar

consistent
Iira

a

a

nnsqih:''l-rz

iq

cne

srr'fj.ipn'

claim

ls

q7R

Qin-alr-r-ainrl

F

Twombly, 550 U.S. at
When the

weLI-pfeaded

578

F.3d

accept

deductions
rha

fact

nr.rnr\qa

2005)).

requirement
annrrah

F:r-tc

in

the

fega.l

at

l-.\

is,

rr

short

of

the

i"lamFnL

tO

AdditionaLly,
noLice

"fair

which

of

it

whaf

rests. "

/ Y t r r u Lrra J I J v ri L trl h u v g / \ Y .uiU L fi lll - l - a . ! \
.
^ vl
. Le
m Y
\ uv!

jncl

this

r//-rrr^t-i^^

at

are

N.A.,

as

ru]e
stage,'

ro:<nnrhlF

as

af

'does not

"unwarranted
as true

for
'sl

lnl^inriff
LPrqlrLLt

1242,

Afdana
1248

v.

(11th

impose a probabifity

buu instead
avna/-l-

factua-l

a

1-268 (ciring

415 F.3d

bound to

"not

admitted

srrf f ic jenr:rz

Inc.,

is

Moreover,

not

accepts

Sinal Lraina-1,

rrue.

couched

6'lB.

ir

dismiss,

Court

578 F.3d ar

"Iclhe

-a

to

complaint.

the

pleading
ica

a motion

a complaint

Produce,

the

555

'merely

are

Fnt

557).

upon

conc.lusion

U.S.

556

j.esl

That

at

-: ives

srounds

However,

SinalLrainaI,

Del Monle Fresh

Lhat

af

sheer

a
Iqbal,

'stops

j-v

1)6,A

considers

in

.\'

aLlegaLions."

Cir.

a

Iqbal,

of

nla,rsihil

i'i-

than

555).

1260.

true

all-egation. "

facts
it

the

ai

facts

1.252 at

as

and
?.1

Courc

the

n'r'.rr

does not

unIawfully."

(quoLing Twombly, 550 U.S.

Id.

r-nmnl:in-

more

liability,

anrj

(quotatj ons

2009)

PlausibiliLV

for

pleads

complaint

a defendant's

with'

'

asks
has acted

defendant
a

Cj r.

ac 678).

it

"but

" W h er e

hpi-waen

relief.'

tqba-1, 556 U.S

thaL

(11th

1.252, 126I

r1- i^.

simply
l-h.f

caffs

for

r l i , _a_ c v e I y
_ c ,

wiII

reveal

Int/1

evidence

of

495 F.3d

Univ.,

y\F.aqqar\/

the

cl p'nrrn-

"

1,295-96 (11th Cir.

L289,

WattS

v,

FIa,

2047) (quoting

Twombly, 550 U.S. aL 545) .
II.

DELIBERATE INDIFFERENCECLAIMS AGAINST DEFENDANT
WILLIAMS
In

her

a g aj n s L

second

Defendant

Pl a; nt' ff
indifferent

to

to

save

DefendanL

Tavara/ s

inmatesf
(Doc

supervisors."
that

that

a practice

"mainLained

Defendant

without

Lives

Wilfiams

officers

and are

ro

that

Defendant
the

Al cefnatj uely/
ln

A. Failure
Defendants
cl-aim

that

1983.

oe]iber^te

lv

because

was

he

rights
from

inLervening

assistance

of

their

Plainriff

"falled

to

train

subordina!es

has

at

nol

to

imm' n.'rrr

an

attempt

to

state
to

a

train

cel .Ls whil e
LhaL

h^rh

lo

tn response,

faifure

enter

argue

a suicide

li 49.)

fai.l-ed

on his

to

alleges
rnar

inmates from suicide,

rnedicaf attention

fjmeJy

(td.

his

Lo p-rotecr

duty

Defendants

nrralif:ed

suj t.

S

addj tion,

Wil-f i-ams based
polj cy

U. S.C.

In

provide

Pi-aint.iff

prison's

errit-.ozl

the

brought

48.)

$

seen commiLc.ing suicide,"
contend

L

officers

must respond adpquately

required

42

Will iams

prohibiting

of

52,

Lo

constitutiona

Lhey have a consciturional
that

PIa i nri ff

l,,iil1-lams pursuanL

'eoes

:

amended compla inL,

Defendanc

.
jnmates

Defendants

claim
his

against
staff

or

unaccompanied.
Wil_liams

ls

^laims.

to Train
first

contend that

Defendant

Williams

plaintiff
was

has faifed

defiberatefv

to

state

indifferenr

when he
^al:rr j
o

jL -n . j
-y

nrarri..l

ucr

P-vvru

omar.rFnr:rr

(Doc.

su.icide. "

her

c o m o la i n t

t-hat

inadcc'rt;f

a! l! 's,9-sn e , - l
o
u

F

frrquuYuoeL

$f

r,,^r^-11,.
.ryprudr-Lyr

by

vioLalions

F rLsui+nr ir nr^ y
L
+ r

r'l
tal

l€l-6-

.rrefUf

of

n. -r f a
y qa L e ! . r r n

Comm'rs of

Brvan Ctv.,

(1997) ) .

In

instances

of

is

this

in

that

was on notice
improperl y

the

provide

to

trained

in

COUft

!he

Lo

necessary'
fai.Lure

of

(quoting

62 (20LL)

to
Bd.

3 9 1, 4 0 9
any

all-eged

that

complaint

the

constitutional

L.he prison.

at

working

officers

reVieW,

not

jn

of

Brown, 520 U.S.

has

an at Lempted sujcide

no indication

51,

cfaim

this

notice

purposes

Okl . v.

Pfaintiff

case,

on

'ordinarily
for

indifference

in

allegations

similar

employees is

untrained

was

cnnar_reCl

that

facLual

Wiffiams

Defendant

n !r+i r v " v ! n n a - s
c
v

contend

no

Thompson' 563 U.S'

Ctv.

there

Lv

Defendants

Connick v.

train."

n

care

has provided

deliberate

demonstrate

of

12.)

5B at

because PfainLlff

fails

medi r:al

urt!rgcrruy

to

subordinates

his

trained

"unconstitutionally

As a

prlor

result,

Defendant Wifliams
Prison

Smj-th State

a de-layed response

to

were

an ongo-tng

suicide.
however,

Pfaintiff,
so

in

obvious
is

incidencs

this

Srates

exlst

where

wds

5U

case

unnecessary.

Lhe United
could

alleges

-hJ rdr ^
c t I hP - 6c rrr L -

Left
the
-h--

that
It

open

that
an

is

the

need for

allegation

c-rue Lhac the

Lhe possibilit-y

fikelihood
^ u r .r
r t . ru rrr,r^ .Y ' r - , ,
r o

of
f ^-

a

of

trainlng
prior

similar

Supreme Court
that

a

constitutional
a

was

failure-Lo-train

of

situation
viofation
c.Iaim

could
v.

aLtach

on rhe basis

Harris,

Court

489 U.S.

hypothesized

traininrr

if

wi thout

a

that

resulLing

n.10.

this
Lhat

prror

training
to

of

an

invofved

fack

constitutional

of

training

provided.

but

i
P _ I an r j f f

trarning.

In

this

Defendant

Wil,liams's

violation.
officers
the

Court

h/ith

woufd
no

Court/ s

that

In

view,
to

defay

necessarj-Iy
allegations

in

order

Lhe
is

of

Williarns

10

of

of

apparent
a

a

a
was

Lhat
that

cel_1 whife

constitutional,

incidents

could

is

Canton

training

entering

prior

in

adequacy

an jnmaLe aLLempLing to

Defendant

c.laim

fikefihood

not

to

respond

to

t a i I u r e - Lo - r r a i n

casef

fead

any

aILege

Defendant WiIIiams's

this

it

Court

Id.

cIaim.

high

a

390

at

ro

hypothetical

chal l enging

policy

caused harm to
finds

is

Id.

need

hypothesized

despite
Id.

constit.utional

failure-co-train

the

for

'' -apons

lrr

Supreme

ceLIs

Supreme Court, s

violation.

unaccompanied

entering

need

the

challenging

is

Ao:rj

force.

a faifure-to-Lrain

than

The

',,i th

no

have

S rt tr) n 6 g p g
l

e

obvious

deadly

Canton

+hp

potent-iaI

Plainliff,s

di fferent

an

dod

to

would

CiEy of

a^n-^n

siLuation,

delay

to

suicide.

CanLon.
a

as

uhe use of

Plaintiff

o{ficers

ongojng

in

wou-ld be

rraj ned

bringing

case,

fundamenlally
claim

a

Tn

nrnrri

plaj ntiff

before

Tn chis

there

from

violation.

(l-989).

388

hyporhetical

concluded
acts

a single

forr-o

being

violations
In

318,

nrllir-n

firsr

of

where

the

com]nit suicide,

not

have been on

I

l

nocice

Ehat

woufd fikel-y

his

FL--

nArra)rrt

ran Y .
. q r , n .v

r.a

:

courts

.ra:l-a.l

/n^t-i.^
trruurrr9

hi^l-,

1U

of

olficers

lead to a constitulional

Moreover.
F){.Fnti^n

Lrarning

in

fL rhr ^
s

nf
L!

have

(ao

F.a-ti^-,hla

see

r v jc h

specjfjc

the

an obvious

need to

need to

City

remove a mentally

a

iff

medicarion

as

prescribed").

hesitant

to

a

incident

violations,

this

Will-iams

coufd

Defendant

Tava.ra's constirutional

Court
have

incidents.

Wilfiams

was on notr.ce that

the

Court

finds

to

the

exlent

to

train

his

that
that

staff,

any
his

Plaintiff's
it

refies

claim
also

staff

indication

to

there

or

have
on

to

been

sj ngle

find

that

differenr

that

reJ-.

recognize

of

ro
prior

Defendant

was inadequately

on a Defendant

11

rhar

any allegarl-ons

deLiberate

must be dismissed.

ex

hospita.l

hesitant

IaW

recurring

Ga.

based

may

e . t uir l D
eY |

"to

a

deliberately

wjthout

Without

q
l .v

ifinding

to

t-

ah
,r i - Y .-. . s

handle

officia-Is

/ 1 qqf \

+ hr a L a
Lr =r

Because courts

been

rights

similar

is

narrow

,4no

Augusta,

1995)

failure-co-trajn

uphold

?O?

lrr-e

to

inmate

dispense

c

Fanarrl

f:i

of

jaif

train

II

tools

D e V a n e y , 5 9 F . 3 d 1 . 1 - 6 0 ,1 1 , 7 I ( 1 1 t h C l r .
was not

ce]Is

empLoy the

^f

^F

al-so Younq v,

entering

hrr ; n nv _ hro c r _ z a dq
r ) /: J t
t c i
z L

rrial5li.'^

^^.ca^,.^^-^

officers

situations");

a

ro

\?n

..eimnlrr
rJlt[Jl _v

r- i rl-rrmqr_:nnoc

en forcement

Rrarrn

al ./ \ rrrL t
l u n

delay

viofation.

been hesjtant

f-antnn

^,r(-1 r . Ln r l
\ rilr v

co

indrfference
Williams, s

trained,
cIaim,
failure

A- l-horrnl-

based on
Io

nro\/i

clF

f:iled

to

that

Plaintiff

that

save

(Doc.

of
Lives

onnni

qj-.at a

lrr

nrr

cfaim
a

liability,

of

his

errir-ida

staff

r- a
* i t_ _ m p r s ,

shoufd

be fiabfe

offjcers

without

assistance

the

On this

shoul-d

claim

cfa im

prohibiting

91 48. )

52,

maintain

based on supervisory

nrnnar

Defendant Williams

inmates'

Pfaintiff's
cannot

l.,)

practjce

a

to

inadequace training

f e r P v ,n s e
. !sno ,J!

aLfeges

supervisors. "

argue

has

/

"maintained

rntervening
their

-i"lalV

F

also

he

i'f

Defendanc Williams,s

PLarntlff
as

P-ai^j.

claj-m,

be

of

Defendants

dismissed

careful

because

Defendant

against

After

from

WifLiams

review,

the

Court

does not agree.
In
1i-abfe

the
under

subordinates
11ability."
1999) .
the

S
on

the

Hartley

the

1360

(1lth

when

a

deliberate

basis
v.

Cir.

of

respondeat

Parnel!,

supervisor

conduct

actions

constitutiona_l

unconstitutional

the

1263,

fjable

of

or
a

when there

supervising

deprivation,,,
2003).

supervisor's
indifference

A

Cottone
causaf

.'custom
to

or

I2

Cir.

a I leqed
connection

and the

arleqed

326 F.3d

can be

policy

constitutional-

vicarrous

the

Jenne/

connecti,on

their

S 19g3 .'when

causaf

officiaf
v.

or

under

a

of

not

1269 (11th

in

is

are

acts

superior

193 F.3d

can be

officials

persona_L-Ly participates

supervisor

unconst.itutional

'.supervi-sory

for

1983

However,, a

between

Circuit,

Efeventh

L352,

established

result [ed]
rights.,.

Id.

in

(quoting

/intornrl

nirrr-inn<

\frrLs!rrqr

In

this

purported

however,

CourL,
whpn

actuaffy
of

vlolation

r - n n c iI .s]ue r i
!

custom or

whe' har

n.r

rrr9

uvrrJ

ra.nr I ramant

See, e.g.,

poficy.

Zatler

v.

he

indr tference

to

an

added)) ,
Plaintiff
has

that

the

such,

has

not

issue.

As

inmale's

faifed

alleged

Defendant

to

that

The CourL

Court
state

be

qveee

3 9 1,

rights."

Defendants'

chac

a cLaim merely

maintained

Wiffiams

has

Plaintiff
the

ecl

the

401 (11th

(emphasis
that

because Plaintrff
poli cy

whiie

aL

alleged

sufficiently

policy

or

defiberale

argument

Defendanc L',/iIIiams c-reaLed the

finds

a

there

creaf

in

results

consLiLuLional
rejects

for

where a policy

fiable

utilized

The

inapposite.

liab-Le

r a l' | I' | Jv,

802 F'2d

Wainwright,

or

estabfished

:r-l

sg . /l! o e r v iY + ! v s o r
!
r |
!

the

to

lndifference,

deliberate

may also

that

custom

in

is

be

could

led
rights.

argument

s rntrrv i sor

rhe

("An official

1986)

Cir.

i

ihar

lu\:lulle,L'errl

has faifed

that

constitutionaf

Defendancs'

resul!s

that

oolicv

any poficy

Tavara's

Wiffiams

Defendant

that

contend

created

thaL

fjnds

2003)

Cir.

S L983 because Plainciff

nrrrsuant to
he

that

attege

(l-l-th

L234-35

)

Defendants

case,

r-a"rn^- he lrahle
to

1-1p.l\
-

nmi

L228,

F.3d

325

Reno,

Gonzal-ez v.

acting

as

warden.
C. Qualified

I m m u n iL y

Because Lhe Court
that

Plalntiff's

evidence

claim

not

persuaoed by

Delendants'

should

be dismissed

because there

is

Lhac DefendanL W-iffiams

-LJ

created

the

policy

argument

at

is

no

issue,

the

must

Court

enci E:Ied
i"rTrnr

\vioLate

aurhority

738 F.3d

Fitzgerald,

whether

established
"For

would
'
v.

to

a consrjrutiona-L

" Hope v.

Cre.ighton,

iha

that

"of

hiahaer-

determine

Defendant

policy

righr

clear

that

730, 139

635,

of

the

v.

HarIow v.

this

Court

must

clear_Iy

established,

^^,.-t

Of

whether

the

the

StaLe

on

notice

simi.lar"

case presently

2009).
or

prior

directly
before

Court

L4

Anderson

the

must

Circuit

faw

court

so long

law

n rd-L^: e , /
^
IJI

have

put

constituted

Battfe,

case 1aw does not
with

or the

worrld

policy

whether
consider

iLo vo k
v ^

events

on point

the

right

deLermining

Eleventh

his

that

its

official

120A2) {citing

this

case

that

a reasonable

In

where

estabfished

established,

vio1ates

(1987)).

640

Supreme Court/

Wifliams

be clearly

536 U.S.

483 U.S.

the

to

doing

Pelzer.

1184 (11th Cir.

"materlally

riqhts

,, Franklin

viol_ated

usA v.
1170,

theif

officials

(ciLing

As such,

what he is

has been c_learly

decisions

the

known.'

2013)

D e f e n d a n L W jf I i a m s , s

r . r iI l ^ . jn

constiLutional

have

(1982)).

818

" Q u a _j lf i e d

law of which he shoufd have been aware.

understand

a right

^f

would

'must be sufficiently

contours

unless

(11ch Cir.

1249

800,

ar:r i"ro

or

is

Williams

cLajm.

that

staLurory

person

L246,

457 U.S.

consider

on

liabiJ ity

from

esLablished

reasonable

a

Defendanl

^ff;-i.tq

c - L e a r ly

which

Curry,

immunicy

chiclnc

drscretjonary

of

whether

consider

gualified

to

rrr

now

the

a

559 r.3d

need. to

be

circumstanees

as the

officlaf

'tar^i^d"

rcrrr

g_Lvsrr

constitutionaf

vj-olation.

of f i-cial

inrenrional

ly

t reaLmerrr,

I f] ] -: hr r
l
\

ad

an

?l1l'(\

/.

indifference

inmaLe

medical

has

nnrrf

LariuaJLcr

vr

has

a

ongoing
that

specifically

suicjde

there

responding
suiclde.
rhaL

is

is
to

very
a

little

medical-

However,

this

v.

supports

the

idea that

nn,rn

<rri ci

required
known

in

that

Briggs,

.io

order
the

qualif ied

to

say

prison's

ro

Lo

insufficient
c_tear]y

agrees

ongoing
to

show

estabfished

Iaw prolects

who knowinglv

an

between
an

stil1

those

violare

'.a-L-L
Lhe

335, 340 (1986) . While case faw

4 15 U . S .

---ctlrpL,

responding

Circuit

Court

difference

11G

,
r

respond

the

irununi r-y, rhe

oIIicers

Eleventh
Lo

be
I2l3

A
d r lor.

violated

policy

incompecenr or

1aw." Malley

ina

-law is

1)G\

r - - \ ,/
u-y.

vjolation,

and

medical

would

?d

tr

the

f ai-Lure

meaningful

crisis

case

DefendanL WiIliams's

che plainly

that

a constiLutiona_

When considering
buL

held

that

M !rc
! . v.' .. r v ) c

Althouqh

he

Ij fe-Lhreatening

Aa)

F.3d 141-9, 1425 (11th Ci-r. 1995)).
neve r

a

that

when

access to

condition

'/

Fl^?am.h

\vuvLrrl9

has provided

an inmate with

the

urgent.

^a I rr,

h\,

a ri !r
v

that.

?41.

Circuit

deliberate

providLng

delays

or

rhe Eleventh

riith

knowing

condition
Av:-arl-'il-

acts

constituted

nalia"
PUtLLy

hie

Hopg, 526 U. S. at

point.

As a starting
"an

l-h^1-

cannot delay

Lr'.^-^
LIrete

that

fS

d

in

I ^
_ v .^r r *I u^--

responding
r

DefendanL WilIiams

pol-icy

15

violaLed

clearly

'r^^^
!uap

",,.t

should

co an
iS

have

esr-ablished

.Fr.^
-Lrrc

-Lctw5.

. t r a t-:l rar y
!.l E

^-i-^-.Prrs\,,rl

in

n
!r a c n n n rde + r r iY n
srPvr

nal ia,,
IJl,. -uy

f.r

t-^

n! y' ar q F r . ' e
P L e rv!

j-ha

.'

Courc does not

it

Therefore,

known

have

not

out

'he

nlrinlv

!!vrLr

qualified

Iine,

dafend^nt
l--LIl

a . c l . . ry

case Iaw,

'nrrar

an\,

DeIendanc Williams

atrl

the policy

in this

III.

at issue

woul-d not
cIea.r.Ly
7

Lauderda]e,

terms,

factua.I

F.3d
has

was not

Williams

. j!f!frrL c ! ^ ^ . . v
J

n a\!r L
y .- c v / arn f r r - Y i r n

ls-

is

indi fferent

by

triil-led

Lo

cla.im

he

that

mainLaining

dismissed.

GDOCAND GCHC
ADA AND RA CLAIMS AGAINST DEFENDANTS
Plainciff

In addicion,
a n d G C H Cp u r s u a n t
RehabiLitatlon
that

case is

of

inmates.

oI

Pfaintiff's

was defiberatefy

The

immunicy almosL always

^.1i^\,?
PUr rey

Accordingly,

irununity.

of

W i . L fl a m s

nefendant

eq'

I c

.Fl

rank.

rights

in

qualified

the

LhaL a policy

ForL

oI

tO

R^tLtrr-

violaLjon

--l-r-i-i-^
lLtct-LIILctIII-LI19 d

Fntar

q

oEEi.tet:S

CefLain

Defendant

City

rF

en'errlo

esrablishing

Rec^rse

"\

a

was

("If

1993)

Of

consticutional

the

a bright

r n . . . . \ m n a l -- -a n - -- j

r'Lur ,L!
!i[ 'u n m c u { i t

sUnFrvisnr

See PosL v'

Iaw.

f rnn

.Jf Fi.Frq

policv

his

(111h Cir.

n-^i o.t<

A

al- +arrnl-

srri.iala

reasonab.Le that

is

1552, \551
staked

d L r q y;
seIar

violates

that

esLab]isned

L n1 r
t .9

year.ti

a ^ y rr !a c c lJ\ /
svn JJr

any case law

find

q.1rr .lcarlv

nr^r

^ nr.Y . i
v' rv

, - lE o i l Y r r e s d
\r oc r-rno

r^ri-l-',.r.'

'hiq

-lrd

^^linrr
vuffLy

D

Act.

Defendants

Tavara

as

contends

to

suic

the Ariericans with
In

her

GDOC and

required

that

brought

by

the

Defendants

against

Dj-sabilities

complaint,

GCHC failed
ADA and RA.

Plaintiff
to

properfy

Specifically,

G D O Ca n d G C H C s h o u f d

IO

Defendants CDOC
Act

and the

claims

that

accommodate
Pfaintiff

have accommodated

Tavara by providing
nl:r-oron-

ihal-

ac-r-ounted f or

the

and a celf

treatment

health

him wj,th mental

presented

dangers

by

his

disability.2
liLle
a

with

II

disabili

exr-l.rdcd

from

1?-l ??

fha

a

/.\

(citing

2001)

in

s-Ff

o-

he

a

or

r-larn

(1)

the

a public

f hal-

or

of

a

Shnl-z

v.

U. S. C.

Cates,
s

256 Y.3d

LIL32)."

1

a

j I

1e

OI

o "r-r' a l i f i e d
Y

from

excluded

publ ic

otherwise

he was discrjminated

Tir

w^s

was

the

42 U.S,C,

lo

he

Lhe benef ir-s

activities

an-

Ta\/^ra

be

of

benefjLS

entity.'

nrrrs

that

\2)

individual

disabiliLy,

such

of

denied

oI

F

show

denied

-"ec

42

reason

disabllity,
o-

\J/

ni sahi I i f rr.

t^

"no qualified

that

accivicies

rr

programs,
orrq

a9arrlrL/

hi s

or

mrrqt

'r

i.'n,rf inr

services,

:on

nartic.inel

with

individuaf

by

shaIl,

pl^intiff

Ana

nirt

t-y

Ar-r-orr-linol

!LIJL

ADA provides

the

programs/

services,
€
J

of

entity's

discriminated
by reason of

against

1.011, 1419

(11th

Cir.

_.

-Lne Supreme uou-rE or

tne

'

are
under
the
Rehabifitation
Act
cfaims
"Discriminat.ion
governed h'y the same standards used in ADA cases
, " Cash
2000) . A" . .esr..,1t,
.t. S*ith,
23I F.3d 1301/ 1305 (11th Cir.
discuss these cfalms together by focusing on the
this Court wilf
("Cases decided under the Rehabilitation
ADA. Id.
at 1305 n.2
AcL are precedenc for cases under the ADA, and vice-versa.").
'

ThF lAr.r'rF.ra nf rhc
n-nrz'rJeq
r har
" f nl n
yLvvrv!J

di sah i r i rz
r-lr cahr

l r l' - L )z' .
r

benefics
.\r

a^Firrrf

q u L r v r e t

qhehe

cvr-

!e

,

of,
rz

or

.r...la.] f r^r.

be subjected

-aneirzinn

J { / Y

l -- a . k .
that
rr,raL f ied

QA I a r.Jpl v
nl he-wi se

ro-lerpl

so

el ru

j-ha

to

r F . t r r i rr a ,m ,aLrJf s
L "r .

in

- Lr

teason

i.'ineFi^n

discriminaL-ion
air,.rr-ial

r e q ! ! e !

U.S.C.
S 194 (emphasis added).
ADA
the
RA and
the
between
r Lqur

hrr

na-t

oI the ADA. The
wich
individual

e^r-L

her
hp

narri

of

his

od

fhe

under any program

aSSiSLance

The only maEerial
respective
is
the
courts

I1

of
i-

RA
a

have

.'29

diflerence
causation
Found

tnaL

States

United
subiecL
E.3d

has

found
of

T-itf e IT

to

7012t

a public

are

ADA. Bircol I--u-.J.ern.:!998-

the

(1]-th Cir.

1081

prisons

state

that

(citing

2001)

Dep't

Pa.

enticy
480

+J.'

v.

Corr.

of

Yeskey, 524 U.S. 206, 211 (1998)).
In
A

this

. 1 , r ^ i * r z 'n r
I

a

state

contend

based

claim

because

j
cannoL show Lhat Tavara was d.en ed any benefiu
(2J any claim

disability;
1s

incognizabfe

under

GDOC are

GCHC and

based on inadequate

entitled

sovereign

to

However/

has failed
Defendants

(1)

Plaintiff

by reason of
medicaf

(3)

ADA and RA; and

the

ADA.

RA.

ADA or

fails

claim

the

w h y P Ja i n t - i f f

the

either

on

Pfaintiff's

that

under

arguments as to

Tavara had

whether

contest

disorder

nenta l- heaILh

Defendancs make severaJ
to

do not

Defendants

case,

both

immunity

his

treatment
Defendants
on

these

claims.
Fi rsithat

Tavara

disability"
view,

nFfan.l^ntS contend
was
as

discriminated

required

by

Tavara was provided

inmate and,
against

as a

because

that

result.
of

his

against

42

with

Pl-aintiff

U.S.C.
the

cannot

12132.

S

show Lhat

difference
this
"was immaterlal
were based on a failure
to make
disabLed indivlduals, " Gaylor v.
20L3 WL 4790158,
2:11-Cv-288,
(ciLjng Bennet NeIson v. La.
2013)
454 (5th Cir. 2005) ).

unabfe

reason

same treatment

d-isability.

18

"by

is

In

to

ot

show
fhisl

Defendants'

as every

other

he was discriminaced

Defendancs'

argumenc,

where the plaintiffs'
claims
reasonable accommodations for
Ga. Deprt of Nat. Res., No.
*3
(N.D.
at
ca.
Sept.
6,
Bd. of Regents, 431 F.3d 448,

hnrrorror

f lrn.l^manf

^-lt l l r z
s

m ti t J ]u]rn rc l e r s f
s
v
rL

ands

-e.Ilti-e.fenf

the

s

of

bOth

the ADA and RA.

requlred
from
and

to

other

to

unabfe

because

Court

this

is

of

provides

is permitteo

as

See,

e.g.,

Wolfe

201,2 WL 4052334, at

that

the

*5

v.

FIa.

of

of

reason

services

or

his

(2004).
benefits

RA require

that

the

to

that

the

ensure

same benefits
Dep't.

(N.D. F1a. Sept.

Department

was

548-49

ADA and

access Lo the

663,

Fforida

access

ADA

509,

accorunodations

sufficient

jnojvjdual
others.

the

disability,

their

to

541 U.S.

the

Tavara

whether
by

not

differently

Rather,

disability.n

benefits

Lane,

unabfe

Tavara

treated

consider

or

services

access

individual

!,1hen

entity

that

See Tennessee v.

disability.

his

because of

inmates

require

RA

Defendants

that

aflege

is

under the ADA and RA' Plaintiff

a c]aim

To maintain

Correct.ions

of

and services

Corr',

14,
was

2A12)

5:10-cv(finding

"deliberately

n fhe Court acknowLedges char- DefendanLs have ciLed auLhority for
must be able to show that Tavara
that Pfaintiff
the proposition
his
because of
from
othet: inmates
differently
was treated
riic:hil

i'rr

qaa-

'::1

F ^

:-:-:-:'

*6

Raa '.lor

:::i-::ji------

\/

M.Ko.i Lhen,
i-=

5:1-L-Cv-316,

2012

(denying an ADA c.Laim based on a faifure
to
WL 3938255, at
than
differentfy
other
was treated
decedent
show that
the
v. Judes, B:1'2-cv-a2315, 2413 U.S. Dist. LEXTS
inmates");
Stiles
(M.D. Ffa. Aug. 30. 2013) (finding that there was
1 2 4 4 8 1, a L . 2 1
was unable to
an ADA cfaim where the plaintiff
no basis
for
jail's
place
inmate
rn
the
decision
!o
the
that
allege
. However,
disability)
was because of his
restrainLs
or isofation
on this Court ' To the extent
none of these cases are controlling
cases hofd that Taval:a had to be treated differently
that those
rhis
CourL does
Lhan other inmaLes because of his disability,
not agree.
l9

indifferent
both

Tavara's

benefi Ls

RA

also

-Far'ri rF

fL^v- !

r-hAi

contend
a-r-oT'rrr.l:f

o

r

nal

i ^i

a-

his

.h
q v r ;a l

offe red

that

r^a^^
! s o 5 ( ,-r-rh l la f
d r

hac

"

fimited

se rvices

and

r.zt

Dlainti

dlsabiIity

" Defendants
the

acLions

complaint,

her

n a .
r r^ ^g !J, r

Plaintiffrs

Lhrough their
In

of

to

at

neither
-1

ia.q

rnnnmmnd:r

5

^c.,\

e.ro.i
I If

L

ty,

I na-

Title

qttnhrlrf

ha

\/

s F \ / e! r L j wv r i J

+^

Smith

Jqt/yv!LvIPvJf-.vll'

i nn

II
nf

q1- :'-

of
thcir

6

Dri

the

cnn

ADA nor
nneir-inn

Defendants cite that neither of these statutes
expressly mention
accommodations, whj-le both Title
I and Title
III
of the ADA
'.rnaking
contain
a definitlon
of d-iscrimination
that
includes
reasonabfe accorunodations, " Compare 42 U,S.C. S 12131, and 29
U.S.C. S 794, with
42 U.S.C. St27L2(b) (5) (A) , ar'd 42 U.S.C.
(b) (2) (A) (il) .
S 12182
As
a
result,
Defendants
conrend
rnar
cannot use Title
"Pfaintiff
f f t o c o m p l a i n o f a n a - l - I e g r e df a i l u r e
to accom.nodate or modify. " (Doc. 53 at L2.) Defendants concede
thac certain
adminj strac ive regufations
under TjtIe
lI
require
accommodar-ions, ( ld_:) However,
DefendanLs argue
that
these
regulations
are jnvl-f id as they exceed rhe right.s created unoer
the starute.
In Bi rco.LI, Lhe Elevench Circu i L Ieft
open rhe
oLlesri

on

of

r^rhcfhor

renrrl

rt

i anc

rFaltr

i ri

na-Y

ra,a q.'\nrl-.1

^

accommodations exceeded the scope of Title
II.
490 F.3d at 1082
n.1. However, this Court finds that both the statutory
language
of the ADA and che weight of aulhority
supports the finding
that
regulations
requiring
accoronodations under
the
ADA are
not
oursi.le

l he

oranr

of

qf^1

hari

auLrLvIrLv'

rrr

As a sLarring
point,
Tir-1e II provides prorections
for a
individual
"qualified
with
a disabitiry.,.
42 U.S.C. S 12132.
The ADA defines a qualified
indlvidual
with a disability
as an
with
"individuaf
disabiLity
who, with or without
reasonabl-e
modifications
meets t.he essenrial
eligibilj
Ey requirements
fa-

t hF

ror-ei

nl

nt

servi.es

.)r

lhe

nari-.i-inat

inn

n
-i - -

n r n _ Y:- * m s
nr
I-,

oI

act ivities
provided by a public
enrity.,
AZ U.S.C. S f2L3f(2).
Mo-reover, oLher courrs have recogni zed ..f irIe
fi's
affirmat.rve
obligat.ion
t o a c c o m m o d a t e ." L a n e , 5 4 1 U . S . a t
bI2;
see a]so
trrame v. Cj Ly of Arlington,
651 E.3d 215, ZZ3 (5Lh Cir-. 2Offy;
GayIor v. Ga. Dept. of Nat. Res., 2:II-cv-ZBB,
2Ol3 WL 4790159,
at *5 (N.D. ca. Sept. 6, 2013). As a result,
the Court rejects
Defendants'
argument that
- r e g u f a LL o n s r e q u i r i n g
accommodations
are outside of the statutory
g'rant in Title
ff.

20

I

contends

to

access

specificafly

and

view

Pfaintiff's
d i fferent
Tavara
j-hFrFf^rc

Ss.L

cel I
was

bl acement

nr-i--i

v-LLSJ.

F !€

h^q

claim

his

benefits

ed

a

Claim

TaVara

ChaL

and,
and
WaS

by the ADA

as required

disabi-lity

contend that

Defendants

for

whlch

can be granted

relief

has failed

Plaintiff

GCHC provided

GDOC and
rlisahiliirr

d

Tj-

rrrsarri

LU

ie

i.rue

PurDur

treaLment

inadequate
neithel

that

r r c d i r - a '-

ADA

the

,

m q - yn q ure- T
!ri
r a

'- . e
L

nol

claims.

to

cfaim

because a

ADA and RA cannot be based on an affeqation

the

ct5

st-;

JLqsLu

Because

accommodatj-ons
certain

rn

included

have

treatment.

health

those

inmates.

other

wou-ld

access

n r l - ) n e r l \ /J

access

RA.

Next,
a

alf

these

to

y!vIJu!f

denied access by reason of
ano

with

unabfe
rrq.

fike

and mental

provided

rema ined

jail

accornmodations

these

not

-

the

at

services

proper

Tavara with

Tavara to

would have aflowed

accommodations, which

Pfaintiff

Accordingly,

housing.6

shoul-d have provided

Defendants

that

benefits

safe

that
oI

state
under

Defendants
Tavara's

RA can be used
See Schiavo ex

o

?avara was denied the benefit
and
Pfaintiff
contends that
Defendants do not
service of safe housing due to his disabifiLy.
contenLion lhat safe housing is a benefic
chaLfenge PlainLiff's
the
under the ADA and RA. Accordingly,
or service thar quafilies
i
when ruling
a-Ll,egaton as sufficienE
Court accepLs Plaintiff's
on thrs motion,
'
Defendants also argue thaL, at the very leasL, these claims
shou]d fai.l under the RA because the causation in the RA is more
rigorous than Lhe scandard in Lhe ADA. See supra p. I7 n,3. As
n r o r ' i n '.vc l r r
sJ

yrcv

r J

n n - L Ld ,
a u

Iv

hnwF\.Fr-

a.,rrr-s

harre

fntrnr'l

tha'

arrz

di fference

are
in Lhe causatjon requ I rements are immaterial when plainliffs
provide
proper
to
on
a
fai lu.re
a
c-Laim based
aJleging
accommodatl0ns.

2I

re1.

v.

Schlndfer

(relying
'.r

t-ha n-annq'lior

prison's
person);

see

nor

a

F' 3d

403

"nej-ther

that

a

by

disabfed

ADA

the

remedies for

medical

alleged

claims

provide

Act

Rehabilitation

the

simply

A m ./

of

Corp.

(concluding

2005)

1996)

violated

not

Corr.

, v'

l'lt]n Cir'

med.ical needs of

the

to

Fitzgerald

also

(1Oth Cir.

1L44

IL34,

attend

to

faifure

che ADA is

thal

2005)

249

84 E'3d 246,

Madigan,

v.

on Bryant

(11-th Cir'

403 F.3d :-289, I294

Schlavo,

Tavara

negligence").
th

r - n m n r a : !nLla-. r

l-o-

P-airtrff

vvrrrl/re

nrnr,:deel

wit-h ^deorare

medical

d L LerrlP L

L-''+ ^^-^^^6s

Lhat

s |unyn o !r f
r
Pv

clains

al lFflas
Ta\/ara
she

Jr1L

thar

comoLetel lr

was
*uJ

uv.'

aIIeoes

P+e

rhar

qtruYvu

ee+

y

is

danr A.i

PLainc i ff's
medical

L ) ' I l v

claims

inadequate

v /

the

Neither

r.ra-r,,:,-\/ nf
these

of

is
RA

rnarlir-el treatment

treatment

to

the

for

treated

designed

were
for

a

disability.

22

are

such,

AS

cannot

agree-

inadequate
illnesses

is

under Lhe ADA and
to

disaOil i ry.

they

that

accommodation

with

mentaf

i m o e r m is s i b f e

extent

of Tavara's

however,

to

Plaintiff

alleging

another

his

suicide

care.

mediCal

provided

was

Tavara

ADA nor

iust

The Court,

c ^'m tl^^l

faif

's

a.-.:eqs

care when he was not

e.xact tvne

RA.

that

cfajm

-n

a--Fqs

is

she

noL

designed

not

HOVJeVeT/

because

differenL

medi r:al

f{A were

hlas

his

during

or

relnr:r--i6q.

Tavara was noL provided,

thaL

the

case

before

Lhe ADA and

na.4in:1

of

rl"is

care

Lhar

consider
As

a

prem.ised

the

resuJc,
on

the

the

However.

accommodated by

properly
claim

accommodation in
f rom any

claim

that

treatment.

As

of

light

nrcmi sc.]

fhe

he
to

such,

.n

provided

was not

Tavara

that

him in

placj.ng

his

to

failrr-e

to

Tavara's
then this

claim

related

immrrnitrr

wif h

resoec-

Defendants

contend

waiver

the

violates

of

the

constitutionaf
DeIendants

that

l_n

that

state's

Constitution.
viofation

argue

accornrnodations

cell

appropriate

an

r--arnc

h'ottoht

GCHC are
under

ADA and RA only

the

immunity

when

either

thaL. irnnunity

bars

the

is
has

must be

entitled
ADA

provide

there

Because Plaintiff
by

claims

PLaintiff's

GDOC and

Defendants

because

dismissed

as

i-s

survives '

Defendant contends

Finaffy,

claim

Pfaintiff's
cerL.ain

such

disability,

assiqnment,

n-ovide

different

L n a d e q u a t e m e di c a f

with

that

extent

A

housing

reasonabfe

1s materialLy

disability

the

a

not

cel I '

an appropriate

with

was provided

was

disability

Tavara's

a

maintains

also

Pfaintlff

that

RA that

ADA and

the

under

claim

notes

Court

and

a

RA.8

limlted

conduct
not

to

that

al-feged a

Defendants

GDOC or

Plaintiff's

c]aims

GCHCf
brought

under the ADA and RA.

o Plaintifl
Lha'- Defendants waived any .righL
alleges in her brief
r r n r n r r n\i / k \ A . a n q F n a f a n c l a n f e l e c t e d t o r e m o v e L h i S c a S e
.n -l:im
case was
that this
to this
Court. The record does not reflect
fifed
suit
ever removed. Rather, the record shows that Plaintiff
(Doc. 1.) While the Court cannot dlscern whether
Court.
in this
aLtorney o.r an attempt to
L h i s a s s i m p - L y a n e . r . r o . rb y P l a i n c i f f ' s
mislead the Court, this argument is relected.

23

Dofcnri:n-q'

this

warve thelr
the

at

Birminqham Bd.
In

+F-l-

federa.I
anri

is

afrA

.l-\r^^riae

Dep't
ca.

Nat.

of

need not

no

consider

to

Regents,

431 F.3d

under

t

pursuant
the

sorrerc'ol
rvvur!!Y/l

L r h e R A I,

to

section
of

(5th

Cir.

.]^aq

nn

address

24

RA.

srrir

SeF

long

II

504 of

the

a

to

of

Gavlor

as

when

failure

Title

the

v

*3

(N'D'

plaintiff

RA' there

under

Titfe

II

was
of

courLS reason Lhat there

RA and

ADA c-Laims for

Bennet-Ne.Lson v.

Id,;

we need not

a

for

abrogation

between

inr"rr.n'1-r,

rhe

not

have found that

RA

as

determjnauion,

455

tn

2013 WL 419A758, at
that

issue

accorunodate.
448,

fo

"u,,qrr+

difference

material

ih^,

iI m m r r n i l re;l ,

(finding

In making this

fail-ure

t-Fl.l

e

r

Defendants are

whether

consider

2:LL-cv-288,

2013)

a claim

no need to
L h e A D A ).

siafc/

Res.,

6,

Sept.

maintained

is

rha

allvgqLsJ

the

under

claim

existing

an

her

accepted

GCHC have

courts

the ADA claims,

Ala.

in

alleged

n q l r r ce r r : rr! T _
eqr
t/

l-rn'tnhr

of

Univ.

1'293 (:-l-th Clr.

pfainfy

As such'

B.)

r lL aLi )'tr' Jq
w u

r

to

accommodate, courts
nun

{ vr! ' t r a tn trr r
: t

i m m r r n ir !f j v

respect

With

tl9l ?,

v.

12BB'

GDoc and

Defenoants

(Doc. 52,

funds.

r'la,-J rn

there

t-^th

has

Plaintiff

pursuant

brought

claims

344 F.3d

Trustees,

case,

this

(-\JrLrPrcr!rrL

of

entaties

that

settl-ed

Garrett

funds.

mis-Lead

to

atl-empt

volous

well

is

it

federal

accepting

to

'ri

A

immuniEy for

Lo claim

right

RA by

rnon

First'

error.

into

Court

2003).

Lrn-de.q

a-.r,rnF"rt

fact'

In

unconvinci ng '

is

however,

argument,

DeIendanLs'

2005)
l'\a-

l-l^F

aL this

La.

Bd.

(" IH]aving
annel

of

already

lan-sr

juncLure

a

rhe

CLaim

issue

T

of

abrogation

under TitIe

remedies under either
Because Defendants
RA,

this

Court

are

purposes of

s a , n r ef o r

finds

that

under e.ither

is

lrr-

Plaint'Ff

CCHCaLlegjng

various

law.

In

that

any

Lheir
state

tort

under the

entitled

to

the ADA or RA.

suit;

(2)

carefuL

hr.\'-^hi-

crri-

v!vvYrLe

:rajnst

Defendants

acts

of

for

sumrnary judgment.

faw

Plaintiff's

pursuant. ro

negligence

c]aim

protects

immunity

and

!

motion

sovereign

shoufd

be

bor-h Defendanrs

consideraL j,on. the Court can only

first

sraLe tort

(1)

because

GDOC and GCHC from
was deficient.

part-iaIIy

After

agree.

lmmuni-ty

Defendants

GDOC and

DefendanEs contend

dismissed

anre Litem notice

A. Sovereign

maintain

those

a

tort

entities

srate

contend

are

and its

that

:a:iner

613in

entitled
enrit.ies

.irlrnunity. Ga. Const.

arL.

Pfaintiff

nafahn-nl-s

to

GDOC and

sovereign

are protecred
I,

S Tt,

is

unabfe

immunity.
from suiL

5l IX (e) .

In

a

various

.Lim.ited waiver
tort

claims.

Genera.l Assembly
the waiver

of

of

the

O.C.G.A.

provided

sovereign

state, s

cenerallyl
by sovere ign

j992,

sovereign

S 50-21-20.

th.irteen

excepttons

inLnunity applies.

25

Within

however,
(*GTCA.)

immunity
the

that

O.C.c.A.

ro

GCHC because

the Ceneral Assembly passed the Georgia Torc Claims Act
as

and

case.").

chis

immunity

Defendant

neither

.rights

STATE LAW TORT CLAIMS AGAINST DEFENDANTS
GDOCAND GCHC
rina-

the

lhe

the ADA, because the

G D O Ca n d G C H C h a v e w a i v e d

inrmunity on claims
]V,

TI of

for

GTCA, the
limit

when

S 5O-2L-24.

|-

in

this

case

GTCA's

police.

or

argue

of

Fha

.'-

de

the

As a result,

barred
AfLer

by

rhe

carefuL

actions

that

enforcement

appears

make the

that

c,lains

as

point,
to

aflowed
officer
350,

a
.

-' vn

cfalm

of

tort

were

Tnlzrrr/^

rs

-Liabi-Lity.

does noL agree

Pfaintlff's

"Lhe

case

Pfaintiff's

O.C.G.A S 50-21-24(5)

whether

providing

be

no

against

at

cfaim

5 2 1,

faw

to

a

that

Ehe

are

cfaim

E.hewaiver

In

are

.law

one

Georgj-a

the

law

enforcement

ca.

Dep't

525

(2010)

26

of

case,

against
Cor.r. ,

(statingr

that

offi cer
there

proposition

the

under

state/s

least

provide

addition,

barred

the

of

conversion

does not

correctiona-l

support

officers

for

See Romano v.

693 S.E.2d

case

to

as

enforcement.

correcLional

discussing
tort

acring

.Iaw

Georgia

However,

specifically

to

Defenqancs

this

waiver

rhis

c- n! fv a r n a m a n f
! !

- e s n vr .^J. 1 li nl n
9 ! y
: Y
.

whon

Court

of

l, :s r ^ r
vr

|

in

stare'9

the

basis

law enforcemenr excepcion
immunity,

officers

the

related

to

activities.

as
to

Lo

Under

S 5A-2I-24(6).

Defendants argue that

consideration,

guidance

qualifies

n r a r r ri d u n Lr .rY
i
r 4

functions

excepl ion

As a starting
any

n€

suiL

nF.r'l i ercnna

exception/'

i m m u n ir y ,

from

O.C.c.A

correctionaf

^- r^fcement

suicide,

sovereign

"

r.:I a.l

fhF

enforcement

"faw

nal- h^-l

protection.

fire

that

the

staL.e -Ls protec!ed

n-nrrr

-ha1-

COntend

under

waiver

the

-n

lrrre

Defendants

fal-ls

I imited

excepti on,
f:i

.asF-

rl^:s

cnac

sovereign

although

not

excepLion,

has

a

correctionaf

3 0 3 G a.

App.

3 4 1,

"If]rom

the

face

of

the

conpfainlf

exception
I^

that

ro

the CTCA's waiver

correcCional

rJt9rrr.rsrrL/

inmil-6q

r-omi nn

reflective
these

tasks

result,

appl ies

to
rn

rrn.lar

are

this

exception

j on,

not

Court
the

case.

of

law

cannot

find

limited

enforcemenL

Department
govern

n l n r h ir n r . v ,
urver -n

of
"che

lL r s a lu , . 6 - . t- _ ,
-rar -h . n

and hospital izatj on of
'/

W h iI e

Lhese

waiver

of

.Iaw

As

a

enforcement

Iiability

Delendants

are

officer,

functlons.

the

al f

tasks

corrections

that

in

the GTCA

G D O Ca n d G C H C a r e

on plaintiff/s

immunity

PrePU.

rhat

enforcement

Accordingty,

sovereiqn

to

the

traditionaf

a

typicaL

state's

this

entit-led

role

nrrq+artrr

an

-r^n-Sition

fha

law

rufes

f p s r -i-n 9r,
!spd ir

training,

itc

€.\-

perform

adopting

that

immuniry applies").

42-2-LL,

S

w o r L i_ t t g ,r r
n
NvL^

concfude

r ql n ^ , !
S UJ t J (^ 1 1 -

typically

wich

the

of

rr O
nv

O.C. c. A.

rehab i litat

not]

sovereign

finds

to

.")^ 'v u - - : r- 1 ) 9 ,
) ^' :>

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<r.Ff

the

claim-s in

the

on

'ensu_r ingl
I
c . la i m t o

n,,r-

nothing

Dorn v.

Ga. Dep't

x

329

finds
Lhe

40L,

that
SIate

response to

On

suicide.
reguirement s

staLe

.1s
v-

385,

Dep,L of

ante

nOLiCe

that

officers,

recej ves

Behavioral

384,

Ga.

Tavara, s death.

31

of

4A3 (2000).
the

t.he

seLtfemenc before

Ga. App.
v.

and

in

notice
the

the

facilLtate

Further,

inrnare self-

notice

that

needs,,

policies

from

or

litem

deniaL

1.)

GDOC on

G D O Cs
,

anre

"Itlhe

625, 532 S.E.2d

*^

inmates

of

Defendant

{quorj ng Wilfjams

Court

i-i6-F

the

this

of

and responding to Tavara's

Disabi-Lities,

(2014)

lack

litem

medical

medicaf

DefendanLs argue thar

based

of

|

and

serious

and

trajning

put

have

point,

r^,,^,,:ts
rawDLt!L.

Developmental
385.

( td. )

purpose

lhe

of

to

ante

(Doc. 52, Attach.

Lhe proLecLion

reaccing

adequaLe no!.ice of
f i 1 fi ,- r^r v
!r!

lack

caused the

adequate

d.isorder"

indifference

claim

As a srarting

nental

which

given

not

pul

must

Plaintiff's

case,

based on

notice

omissions

"was

Constitution.

injuries."

Pfaintiff

serve

severe

faw clajms

anLe litem

or

In this

Tavara

a "deliberate

vlofation

ante

his

acts

"the

thal

an

above,

S 50-21-26.

discusses

attention

of

srate

Ehe alfeged

With

Nothinq

Heafth

165

{_

S.E.2d

Human Res.,
rhis

litem
n voL tUe rnLff
P
r

the

soaf

notice
i A lf
q

in

in
wds

n c r r r i . 9 u rn enc o
rc r
rIc9-r

the

notice

would

have alerted

clai-m based

on

Defendanr

the

GDOC thac

neqliqence

of

the

responded

to

law

based on GDOC's negl igence

claim

suicide

Tavara's

suicide.

As

a

P-Laintif f
individuaL

result,
in

would

have a

officers

that

Plainuiff's

responding

ro

state
Tavara's

dismissed, e

is

CONCI,US
ION
For che foregoing
PAR!

and

DENfBD fN

agrainst

Defendant

mocion

is

of

motion

a policy

on
extent

of

and

respect

deliberate

faj-ling

GR;NiITED
to

fai.Lure
that

to
the

to

the

provide
c]aims

his

S 1983,

under

the

that

medical
the

Defendants'
cfaims

the

are

cl-aims

s

Wi.lfians
to

staff

GRjAI{TED
IN

Pfaintiff,

Plaintiff's

indifference

extenl

under

to

Defendant

train

claims

moLion is

42 U.S.C,

agaj-nst

P-laintif f 's

to
is

With

f{if f iams under

indifference

inmates

respect

PART.

Defendants'

GRjAI{TED. AccordingLy,

defiberate
having

reasonsf

for

based

medicaf

on

neeos

DISMISSED. With

ADA and RA, Defendants,

these

treatment.
ADA and

cl-aims

are

However,
RA a r e

premised
to

based

the
on

" Although not enLirely
clear from the amen<ledcomplainc,
the
b a s i s o f c h e n e g l i g e n c e c l a i m a g a i n s l D e f e n d a n t G C H Cs e e m s L o o e
premised on a fail-ure
to provide
Tavara with
mental
health
treatment prior
(Doc. 52 aL 14.) As the ante litem
to his death,
expressly referenced claims arising
from rhe fai_ure to provide
medical
prior
care
to
his
suicide,
this
claim
cannot
be
(Doc. 52, Attach.
dismissed for a Iack of notice.
1.) However,
to the exLent chat any claim is broughr againsr DefenoanL GCHC
based on the
negligence
af
various
responders
to
Tavara's
ongoing suicide
this
claim must be dismissed.
As discussed,
provided
there
was no notice
in
the ante litem
notice
that
Pfaintiff
maintained
a claim based on the negligence
of the
indjvid-:al
oflicers
in responding ro Tavara's ongoing suicide.

32

f ai lrtre

rt v
o

DENIED and
stale

motion

Defendants'

prior

the

su.rvi ving
and

GCHC for

to his
At

, LJtJS(,L

a

Plaintiff's

claim

remain.

FinalIy,

Plaintiff's

el lcrre

neol

h!rv n y r r L n h l r
v
u

Tavara

is

Pfaintiff
againsr

a.fainsL
qY

DENIED.

claims

indifference

to

treatment.

with

is

feft

with

Delendants

remain,

In

fe$,

Shelby

addition,

:n

ioe-r-e

2O4av

accommodate Tavara's

claim

menLal healLh treaLmenc services

so oRDEREi'
*D

: r
r ' l q if r t L
Lr

D e f e n d a n t s G D O C a n d G C H Cu n d e r t h e A D A

against

RA based on a faifure

e " 1 r -i t , r r l q

DIsl{IssED.

are

claims

order.

Plaintiff's
deliberate

i^^-^p

I rYErruE

neglj.gence,

G D O Cs
/

provide

to

this

and the

fLF

these

jS

motiOn

Plaintiff's

to

motion

farLure

concl-usion of

for

-I^ ^ l
I sy

arly

Defendants'

death,

cfaims.

Dickson

---.

Lw

cndanrs'

respect

Defendant

on

GR iITED and
N

is

rFqnp^-

w:j-l-

Defendant

based

cfaims

With

remain.

.)ef

o-s -

ar-r:onnodati

c.Lains

these

law

u-r^,p\/ar

rJe nroner

nrovi
y!vv

nf

against

FA: lin.r

prior

fn

co his

Fal.rnrrrrr

WILLIAM T.

disabilitv

Defendant
nrnr,irie

GCHC for

-alrar,a

death su.rvives.

2Ole

MOOREI JRq

U N I T E D S T A T E SD ] S T R I C T C O U R T
D
SOUTHERN ISTRICT OF GEORGIA

w,ith