Lorenzo v. Georgia Department of Corrections et al

Filing 29

ORDER granting Defendants' 15 Motion to Dismiss; instructing the Clerk to terminate the Georgia Department of Corrections and John Doe #1 and John Doe #2 as parties in this case; and determining that only Plaintiffs' claim against Williams and Pittman in their individual capacities for their alleged Failure to protect Lorenzo, which Defendants did not move to dismiss, will proceed. Signed by Judge J. Randal Hall on 3/8/2017. (jah)

IN THE UNITED

FOR THE

STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OP GEORGIA
STATESBORO DIVISION

RAMIRO GONZALES,

JR.,

Administrator

the

of

Cristian

of

Ivan

*

as
Estate

Bailon
*

Lorenzo, and MARIBEL
LORENZO MOLINA,

*

Plaintiffs,
v,

CV
GEORGIA

DEPARTMENT

CORRECTIONS,
Division

of

616-011

OF

an Administrative
the

State

*

of

Georgia, STANLEY WILLIAMS,
Individually and in his
Official Capacity as Warden of

*

Smith State Prison, JARROD D.
PITTMAN, Individually and

in his Official Capacity as
Correctional Officer at Smith

State Prison, and JOHN DOE #1
and JOHN DOE #2, Individually

*

*

and in their Official

Capacities as Officials of
Smith State Prison,
Defendants.

ORDER

This case arises out Cristian Ivarj Bailon Lorenzo's death
l

at

Smith

State

Prison

in

Glennville,

Georgia.

Following

his

death, Plaintiffs filed suit on Lorenzo' Is behalf alleging statelaw and constitutional claims.

Defendants move

to dismiss all

but

one

their

claim.

claims

sufficient

Because

fail,

and

facts

indifference

to

Plaintiffs

to

because

GRANTS Defendants'

Before
Prison.

known

his

(Doc.

death,
1 1

threatened Lorenzo,

(Id.)

who

The

Lorenzo.

(Id.

St

was

12.)

Lorenzo

prison

incarcerated

be

to

Smith

at

transferred to

officials/

however,

According

to

Corrections;

Prison,

Pittman,

suit
(2)

State
a

Duron

a different

ignored

Plaintiffs,

handcuffed,

Duron,

who

his

against:

(1)

Stanley Williams,

the

13.)

unrestrained,

estate and his

Department
of

individually and in his official capacity;

a prison official at Smith State Prison,

and in his official capacity; and (4)

1

(Id. 1 13-14.)

Georgia

the warden

Defendant
(Id.

was

Plaintiffs, the administrator of Lorenzo's

filed

Court

Plaintiffs,

stabbed Lorenzo repeatedly with a metal shank.

mother,

the

And on February 12, 2014, Duron murdered

14.)

was

deliberate

needs,

Pittman entered Lorenzo's cell and handcuffed him.

And while

plead

15).

According

asked to

(Id. 1 16.)

requests.

of

to

of

He shared a cell with Richard Duron,

1

(Id.

number

Background

Lorenzo

11.)

(doc.

a

failed

claim

medical

motion to dismiss

murderer.

cell.

their

serious

I.

that

Plaintiffs

support

Lorenzo's

concede

Smith

(3)

of

State

Jarrod

individually

John Does #1 and #2.

In

their complaint, Plaintiffs assert claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
for alleged violations of Lorenzo's rights under the Fourth,

Eighth,

and Fourteenth Amendments and state-law claims under the

Georgia Tort Claims Act.

deliberate

They allege that Defendants acted with

indifference to

Lorenzo's

safety before the

after

stabbing.

stabbing

!

and

to

his

medical

needs

the

move to dismiss all but one claim.
II.

In
courts

considering
test

plaintiffs
Rhodes,

all

will

416

facts

the

232,

alleged

inferences

in

in

the

to

236

a

15.)

dismiss

sufficiency

ultimately

U.S.

now

Legal Standard

motions

legal

(Doc.

Defendants

prevail
(1974).

complaint

light most

of

Rule

complaints,

on
A

under

the
court

and

favorable

the

all

whether

Scheuer

accept

construe
to

not

merits.
must

12(b) (6),

as

true

reasonable

plaintiff.

Hoffman-Pugh v. Ramsey, 312 F.3d 1222, 1^25 (11th Cir. 2002).
court,

however,

only

U.S.

678-79

A

its well-pleaded facts.

complaint

on its face.'"

"factual

544,

also must

that

alleged."

Id.

Ashcroft v.

Iqbal,

556

"contain sufficient

factual

matter,

Ato state a claim to relief that is plausible

Id. at 678

570

content

inference

A

(2009).

accepted as true,

550 U.S.

See

need not accept a complaint's legal conclusions

as true,
662,

v.

(2007)).

that
the

(citing Bell Atl.

allows

A plaintiff
the

defendant

is

court

to

liable

Corp.

v.

Twombly,

is required to plead
draw
for

the
the

reasonable
misconduct

"The plausibility standard is not akin to a

^probability

requirement,'

but

it

asks

for

more

than

possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully."
Ill.

As

More

noted,

specifically,

asserted

claims

against

the

all

Pittman

medical

acted

needs.

Plaintiffs

seek

Georgia

with

In

concede

constitutional

to

and

their

claims

Id.

and

of

the

claim.

claims

Corrections,

in

all

their

official

claim that

Williams

to

motion

state-law claims

the

one

all

indifference

Defendants'

against

but

dismiss

Pittman

deliberate

to

all

to

Department

claims,

response
that

dismiss

move

Williams

state-law

sheer

Discussion

Defendants

asserted against

capacities,
and

Defendants

a

fail,

Georgia

Lorenzo's

to

dismiss,

that

their

Department

of

Corrections and against Williams and Pittman in their official

capacities

fail,

and that

Defendants fail.

their

claims

against

the John

Doe

Thus, the only disputed issue before the Court

is whether Plaintiffs'

claim against Williams and Pittman based

their alleged deliberate indifference to; Lorenzo's medical needs
should proceed.

The

state

has

a

"constitutional

obligation

to

provide

minimally adequate medical care to those whom [it is] punishing

by incarceration."
Cir.

under

1991).

the

indifference

Harris v. Thigpen, 941 F.2d 1495, 1504 (11th

Prisoners,

eighth

by

therefore,

amendment

correctional

to

are

be

"guaranteed the

free

institutions

from

to

their

right

deliberate

serious"

medical

needs.

Id.

indifference to
(1)

that

he

officials
needs;

had

(3)

serious

with

on

needs,

medical

subjective

a

claim

needs;

(2)

deliberate

Goebert v. Lee,

of

deliberate

a plaintiff must

that the prison officials'

plaintiff's injuries.
Cir.

succeed

serious medical

acted

and

To

that

prove:

the

prison

indifference

misconduct

510 F.3d 1312,

to

his

caused the

1326

(11th

2007) .

A serious medical need "is one that has been diagnosed by a

physician as mandating treatment or one that is so obvious that

even

a

doctor's

shown

lay

person

would

attention."

by

violation."

easily

Id.

personal

And

recognize

the

" [c]ausation,

participation

in

of

the

necessity
course,

for

a

can be

constitutional

Id.

To show deliberate indifference,

a plaintiff must prove

(1)

i

subjective knowledge of a risk of harm and (2) disregard of that
harm (3) "by conduct that is more than [gross] negligence."
at

1327

(alteration

in

original)

quotation marks omitted).

(citation

omitted)

Id.

(internal

Whether a defendant had subjective

knowledge of a risk of harm is typically a factual

question

"subject to demonstration in the usual ways, including inference
from circumstantial evidence, and a factfinder may conclude that

a prison official knew of a substantial risk from the very fact
that the risk was obvious."

quotation marks omitted).

IdL_ (citation omitted)

(internal

Similarly, N> [d] isregard of the risk

is

also

a

question

methods."

Id.

negligence'
in

care,

need;

(3)

And

fact

that

consider:

"(1)

Defendants
pleaded

that

Lorenzo's

is

contend
they

serious

'more

the

of

by

standard

than

gross

seriousness

of

that

acted

medical

Plaintiffs
with

needs.

As

medical

knew

of

a

Pittman.1

Thus,

Plaintiffs

disregarded

that

risk

have

risk

of

the

have

deliberate

Plaintiffs

serious

the

condition;

an

have

not

and

sufficiently

indifference

initial

to

matter,

the

adequately pleaded that

needs

and

harm:

that

Lorenzo

Defendants

was

focuses

its

sufficiently

pleaded

stabbed

in

analysis

Court

on

that

of

medical

Id.

satisfied that

subjectively

whether

of

had

Lorenzo

front

shown

whether the delay worsened the medical

the reason for the delay."

Court

be

meaning

"[t]he

can

is not self-evident," but in cases involving a delay

courts

(2)

of

harm by condpct

that

was

Defendants

more

than

gross negligence.

In

their

complaint,

Plaintiffs

allege

Lorenzo was repeatedly stabbed by Duron,
administration

of

immediate

medical

that,

Defendants delayed the

treatment,

proximately resulting in Mr. Lorenzo's death."

1

The Court notes

that

Plaintiffs have not

"[a]fter Mr.

directly

(Doc. 1

and

1 18.)

alleged that Williams was

present when Duron stabbed Lorenzo and thus have not alleged that he was
subjectively aware of Lorenzo's serious medical needs.
But because
Plaintiffs have failed to allege that either Defendant disregarded Lorenzo's
needs by conduct that was more than gross negligence, the Court will assume
Plaintiffs have adequately pleaded subjective knowledge of serious medical
needs for purposes of this Order.

They also claim that

"[t]he actions of Defendants

constituted a

deliberate indifference to the safety and serious medical needs
of

prisoner

Lorenzo,

infliction
punishment

of

and
(Id.

paragraphs

complaint

that

indifference

have,

pain

. . . ."

These

which

of

a

662,

678

(2009)

Atl.

Corp.

v.

contain

pleaded

cause

of

unnecessary
and

cruel

and

the

only

wanton
unusual

Plaintiffs'
serious

only

"a

action."

allegations

claim

medical

of

formulaic
Ashcroft

550

U.S.

544,

the

Plaintiffs

recitation
v.

555

in

deliberate

needs.

Iqbal,

(internal quotation marks omitted)

Twombly,

and

SI 2 6.)

Lorenzo's

therefore,

elements

suffering,

address

to

constituted

of

556

the
U.S.

(quoting Bell

(2007).

Plaintiffs

have not pleaded "factual content that allows the court to draw
the

reasonable

inference

that

[Defendants

misconduct alleged."

Id.

facts

Defendants

explaining

assuming

how

Defendants

did

are]

They do not allege,

delay

delayed

liable

for

the

for example,

any

treatment.

treatment,

And

Plaintiffs

do

even
not

allege any facts showing that Defendants delayed treatment by
conduct that was more than gross negligence.

Nor do they offer

any factual allegations supporting the inference that a delay in
treatment caused Lorenzo's death.

to

plausibly

indifference

allege
to

that

Lorenzo's

GRANTS Defendants'

Thus,

Defendants

serious

Plaintiffs have failed

acted

medical

motion to dismiss.

with

needs,

and

deliberate
the

Court

IV.

Because

Plaintiffs

claims

fail,

facts

to

deliberate

and

have

because

support

conceded

Plaintiffs

their

indifference to

Court GRANTS Defendants'

Conclusion

claim

that

a

number

of

their

failed to plead sufficient

that

Lorenzo's

Defendants

acted

serious medical

motion to dismiss

(doc.

with

needs,

15).

the

The Clerk

is instructed to TERMINATE the Georgia Department of Corrections

and John Doe #1 and John Doe #2 as parties in this case.
Plaintiffs'

individual
Lorenzo

—

claim

against

capacities
which

for

Williams

their

Defendants

did

and

alleged
not

move

Pittman

failure
to

in

to

dismiss

Only
their

protect
—

will

proceed.

ORDER ENTERED at

Augusta,

Georgia this

_£

day of March,

2017.

HONORRBTE

J.

RANDAL HALLV

UNITED/STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
IERN

DISTRICT OF GEORGIA