North v. Cuyahoga County, et al

Filing 9

Order denying Cuyahoga County's Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim (Related Doc # 5 ) and Minutes of teleconference held 9/10/15. Follow-up teleconference set for 11/19/15 at 12:00 PM on the Court's bridge line. Time: 20 min Judge Dan Aaron Polster on 9/16/15.(P,R)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

Cameron North,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Cuyahoga County, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 1:15-cv-01124-DAP
JUDGE DAN AARON POLSTER
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
DISMISS
and
MINUTES OF TELECONFERENCE

I. BACKGROUND
According to the Complaint, Plaintiff Cameron North began serving an eight-month jail
term in Cuyahoga County Correctional Center (the “Jail”) in February of 2013. Compl. ¶ 15,
Doc. #: 1-1.
Sometime in late April or early May, North began to experience medical symptoms.
Compl, ¶ 18. Over the next several days, North’s medical symptoms changed and worsened,
and, on May 13, 2013, North suffered a debilitating stroke. Compl. ¶¶ 19–50, 55–57. On May
13, North was taken to MetroHealth Hospital. Compl. ¶ 48. On several occasions between the
onset of North’s medical symptoms and the time of his hospitalization, North claims to have

requested medical assistance from Jail personnel. ¶¶ 22– 47. North claims, however, that the
Jail and its personnel failed to provide North with medical treatment. Id.
On May 12, 2015, North filed the instant case in the Cuyahoga County Court of Common
Pleas. Compl., Doc #: 1-1. The Complaint alleges two federal and two state claims against
defendants Cuyahoga County; John Doe, a former medical director for the Cuyahoga County Jail;
and unnamed correctional officers, doctors, and nurses at Cuyahoga County Jail. Id. On June 3,
Defendant Cuyahoga County filed for removal to this Court on the basis of federal question
jurisdiction, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Notice of Removal, Doc #: 1.
On July 10, 2015, Defendant Cugahoga County moved to dismiss, pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Doc #: 5. The motion was fully briefed on August 31. Upon review of the
filings, the Court scheduled a teleconference for September 10.

II. TELECONFERENCE MINUTES
The Court held a teleconference on September 10, 2015 at 11:30 a.m. with counsel
Jacqueline C. Greene and Terry H. Gilbert, representing Cameron North, and counsel Jennifer M.
Meyer, representing Cuyahoga County.
The Court discussed the outstanding Motion to Dismiss, Doc. #: 5, and canvassed counsel
regarding the possibility of engaging in settlement negotiations. North’s counsel updated the
Court regarding North’s present condition. Counsel and the Court discussed available and notyet-acquired medical documentation.
As a result, the Court scheduled a follow-up conference call for November 19, 2015, at
12:00 noon. Before the next teleconference, the parties are directed to engage in limited, paper
-2-

discovery including 1) medical records for North reflecting any significant health issues before
his custody, 2) North’s medical records during custody, 3) records of North’s treatment at
MetroHealth and then at Cleveland Clinic, 4) records reflecting North’s current condition, and 5)
prison records from late April through May 2013 relating to North’s requests for medical care
and any care that was given. North is directed to make a realistic demand before the next
teleconference.

III. MOTION TO DISMISS
Defendant Cuyahoga County (the “County”) has moved the Court to dismiss the County
as a defendant, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Motion to Dismiss 1, Doc #: 5. The County
argues both that North’s claim is barred by the statute of limitations and that North has failed to
state a claim against the County upon which relief may be granted. For the reasons discussed
below, the instant Motion to Dismiss, Doc. #: 5, is denied.

A. Legal Standard
In evaluating a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, a court construes the complaint in the
light most favorable to the plaintiff, and accepts the complaint’s allegations as true, drawing all
reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff. Crugher v. Prelesnik, 761 F.3d 610, 613 (6th Cir.
2014). To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, “a complaint must contain sufficient
factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft
v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570
(2007)). “ A claim has facial plausibility when the pleaded factual content allows the court to
-3-

draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. The
“plausibility” requirement is not a heightened or “probability” pleading requirement, but
“[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory
statements, do not suffice.” Id; see Dubay v. Wells, 506 F.3d 422, 427 (6th Cir. 2007). “For a
claim to be viable, the complaint must, at a minimum, ‘give the defendant fair notice of what the
. . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’” Marie v. Am. Red Cross, 771 F.3d 344, 364
(6th Cir. 2014) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555); see also Decorative Panels Int'l, Inc. v. Int'l
Ass'n of Machinists & Aerospace Workers Local Lodge W-260, 996 F. Supp. 2d 559, 568 (E.D.
Mich. 2014) (“The function of a complaint is to afford the defendant fair notice of what the
plaintiff's claim is and the ground upon which it rests. A complaint need not set down in detail
all the particularities of a plaintiff's claim.” (internal citations omitted)).

B. Discussion
Here, North’s complaint makes sufficient allegations to satisfy the standards outlined in
Iqbal and Twombly. 42 U.S.C. § 1983 creates a cause of action against a person acting under
color of state law to deprive another of a federally protected right. However, “a local
government may not be sued under § 1983 for an injury inflicted solely by its employees or
agents. Instead, it is when execution of a government's policy or custom . . . inflicts the injury
that the government as an entity is responsible under § 1983.” Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs. of
City of New York, 436 U.S. 658, 694 (1978).
North claims “repeated denials from multiple different C.O.s” and “repeated failures from
multiple different members of the medical staff” evidence a “practice or custom of denying
-4-

medical care in violation of prisoners’ constitutional rights” Opp. to Mot. to Dismiss 12–13, Doc
#: 6. In short, North has alleged the repeated seeking of needed medical treatment from several
of the Jail’s medical and correctional personnel, the receipt of none, and a failure of training
and/or supervision underlying said systematic failure. See Compl. ¶¶ 22–47, 62–67. While
North must ultimately prove these allegations, accepting them as true, as it must at this stage, the
Court can reasonably infer the existence of a policy or failure to supervise sufficient for North’s
Monell claim to survive the instant Rule 12(b)(6) motion.
While it is unclear whether all of the alleged violations of North’s rights fall within the
statute of limitations, at a minimum some of the claimed violations are not time-barred. In a
§ 1983 action, state law governs the duration of the statute of limitations, but federal law governs
when the cause of action accrues. Sharpe v. Cureton, 319 F.3d 259, 266 (6th Cir. 2003). Here,
the parties agree that the statute of limitations is two years. Mot. to Dismiss 5; Opp. to Mot. to
Dismiss 4; see Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2305.10.
In general, “[t]he statute of limitations begins to run ‘when the plaintiff knows or has
reason to know of the injury which is the basis of his action.’” Trzebuckowski v. City of
Cleveland, 319 F.3d 853, 856 (6th Cir. 2003). However, “some injuries and causes are so latent
as to elude discovery at the time of the injury-causing event.” Fonseca v. Consol. Rail Corp.,
246 F.3d 585, 588 (6th Cir. 2001). Here, the accrual of North’s causes of action is based not on
discovery of medical problems, but rather on the Jail’s indifference to North’s serious medical
needs. See Heard v. Sheahan, 253 F.3d 316, 318 (7th Cir. 2001). As the Complaint alleges
several denials of medical treatment by several unidentified Doe defendants across several days,
it is not possible to establish, based on the Complaint alone, precisely when North would or
-5-

should have been aware that a serious medical need was being disregarded.
North urges the Court to delay the accrual of all violations related to his causes of action
based on application of the “continuing violation” doctrine. See generally Bowerman v. Int'l
Union, United Auto., Aerospace & Agric. Implement Workers of Am., Local No. 12, 646 F.3d
360, 366 (6th Cir. 2011) (“When a continuing violation is found, ‘a plaintiff is entitled to have
the court consider all relevant actions allegedly taken pursuant to the [wrongful] policy or
practice, including those that would otherwise be time barred.’” (alteration in origina(quoting
Sharpe, 319 F.3d at 267)). The continuing violation doctrine, however, does not apply to serial
violations: a series of discrete acts of which the plaintiff would have been immediately aware.
Sharpe, 319 F.3d at 268; Bowerman, 646 F.3d at 366. Here, rather than representing a single
continuing violation, the alleged individual actions by Jail personnel refusing medical care
appear to represent discrete unlawful acts that individually trigger the statute of limitations. See
Bruce v. Corr. Med. Servs., Inc., 389 F. App'x 462, 466 (6th Cir. 2010). But see Shomo v. City of
New York, 579 F.3d 176, 182 (2d Cir. 2009); Turley v. Rednour, 729 F.3d 645, 651 (7th Cir.
2013). Thus, based solely on the Complaint, the continuing violation doctrine is inapplicable.
Consequently, because the Complaint was filed on May 12, 2015, and the Complaint
alleges deliberate indifference on May 12 and 13, 2013, at least some of North’s claims are not
time-barred and the County cannot be dismissed on statute of limitation grounds. However,
because the statute of limitations issue may turn on questions of fact, the parties are not barred
from re-arguing the statute of limitations in later filings, should relevant facts be revealed during
discovery.

-6-

IV. CONCLUSION
In summary, Motion to Dimiss, Doc. #: 5, is DENIED. Parties are directed to engage in
paper discover regarding North’s medical and prison records, and North must make an initial
settlement demand, prior to the teleconference scheduled for November 19, 2015, at 12:00 noon.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Dan A. Polster Sept. 16, 2015
DAN AARON POLSTER
UNITED STATE DISTRICT JUDGE

-7-