Boshears et al vs. Kitsap County et al

Filing 54

ORDER denying 50 Defendant Boyer and Newlin Motion to Dismiss without prejudice; signed by Judge Ronald B. Leighton.(DN)

Download PDF
HONORABLE RONALD B. LEIGHTON 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 7 8 CASE NO. C16-6012RBL WILLIAM BOSHEARS, et al, 9 Plaintiffs, 10 11 ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS BOYER’S AND NEWLIN’S MOTION TO DISMISS v. KITSAP COUNTY, et al, DKT. #50 12 Defendants. 13 14 THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendants Steve Boyer’s and Ned Newlin’s 15 Motion to Dismiss [Dkt. #50] Plaintiffs Christina Boshears’, her Estate’s, and surviving family 16 members’ claims against them under Federal Civil Rule 12(b)(6). Boshears died while in custody 17 at the Kitsap County Jail. At the time, Boyer was the Sheriff of Kitsap County and Newlin was 18 the Chief of the Kitsap County Correctional facility. Boshears alleges a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 denial 19 of prisoner medical care claim against them. 20 21 I. DISCUSSION In their Amended Complaint [Dkt. #11], Plaintiffs allege Boyer and Newlin were the 22 final policymakers of the Kitsap County Sheriff Office Jail (KCSOJ), where practices, policies, 23 and customs demonstrated “deliberate indifference” to inmates’ constitutional right to receive 24 ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS BOYER’S AND NEWLIN’S MOTION TO DISMISS - 1 1 necessary healthcare for “serious medical needs,” such as when “the failure to treat a prisoner’s 2 condition could result in further significant injury”—in this case death—or could cause 3 “unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain.” See Estella v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104, 97 S. Ct. 4 285, 50 L.Ed.2d 251 (1976). They allege that as the final policymakers, Boyer and Newlin were 5 ultimately responsible for the operation, and actual practices, of KCSOJ. They also allege Boyer 6 and Newlin failed to assure KCSOJ met minimum federal standards, and instead promulgated 7 policies and practices that prioritized aggressively cutting and containing costs over redressing 8 inmates’ serious medical needs. This “unwritten” prioritization is allegedly evidenced by the 9 Jail’s allowing licensed practical nurses to assess inmates’ health, which Plaintiffs claim exceeds 10 the training and licensure of LPNs, and by discouraging transfers of inmates to hospitals, even 11 when necessary for treatment of serious, life-threatening medical conditions. 12 Upon a motion to dismiss under Federal Civil Rule 12 (b)(6), the Court limits its review 13 to the allegations of material fact set forth in the Complaint, which are taken to be true and 14 viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party together with all reasonable 15 inferences therefrom. See Pierce v. NovaStar Mortg., Inc., 422 F.Supp.2d 1230, 1233 (2006) 16 (citing Pareto v. FDIC, 139 F.3d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1998)). Dismissal can be based on both the 17 lack of a cognizable legal theory or the absence of sufficient facts alleged under a cognizable 18 legal theory. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dept., 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). 19 Conclusory allegations of law and unwarranted inferences are not sufficient to defeat a motion to 20 dismiss and need not be accepted as true. Id.; see also Holden v. Hagopian, 978 F.2d 1115, 1121 21 (9th Cir. 1992). “While a complaint attacked by a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss does not need 22 detailed factual allegations … , a plaintiff’s obligations to provide the ‘grounds’ of his 23 ‘entitlement to relief’ requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the 24 DKT. #50 - 2 1 elements of a cause of action will not do.” Bell Atlantic Corporation v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 2 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007) (quoting Sanjuan v. American Bd. of Psychiatry 3 and Neurology, Inc., 40 F.3d, 247, 251 (C.A.7 1940)). Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint is replete with references to “written” policies requiring 4 5 KCSOJ staff to monitor and to treat inmates withdrawing from opiate addiction that contradict its 6 “actual” policy of not monitoring for drug withdrawal. It also references to the contract between 7 Defendant Kitsap County and Defendant ConMed (the on-site health services provider), which 8 allegedly articulates customs, practices, and policies prioritizing and incentivizing savings. It 9 also alleges Boyer and Newlin, as signatories to the contract, had to know, or at the least, should 10 have known, the true intent of the KCSOJ’s contract with ConMed: “save money, put safety 11 last.” 12 As a slogan, this allegation might make a catchy bumper sticker, but as the Supreme 13 Court admonishes, a plaintiff’s obligation to provide the “grounds” of their entitlement to relief 14 requires more than mere labels and conclusions. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 15 555 (2007). On the face of the Complaint, it is evident something went terribly wrong in the jail 16 between December 12, 2013 and December 15, 2013 involving Christina Boshears. Whether it 17 involved the personal participation of Boyer and/or Newlin cannot be gleaned from Plaintiffs’ 18 factual assertions, but she has raised a plausible-enough-on-its-face assertion that as contract 19 signatories, they had a role in setting the jail’s unwritten policies, or at least should have known 20 the effect of those policies on inmates in need of serious medical attention. The Court will 21 therefore defer deciding on the claims against Boyer and Newlin until Plaintiffs have had an 22 opportunity on summary judgment to present evidence making more concrete the viability of 23 their claims against these two individuals. 24 DKT. #50 - 3 1 II. CONCLUSION 2 The Motion to Dismiss [Dkt. #50] is DENIED without prejudice. 3 Dated this 22nd day of June, 2017. 5 A 6 Ronald B. Leighton United States District Judge 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 DKT. #50 - 4

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?