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
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?