United States District Court, D. Colorado
ESTATE OF DILLON BLODGETT, and ADRIENNE LEONARD, personally and as personal representative of the Estate of Dillon Blodgett, Plaintiffs,
v.
CORRECT CARE SOLUTIONS, LLC; CORRECTIONAL HEALTHCARE COMPANIES, LLC. d/b/a “CORRECTIONAL HEALTHCARE MANAGEMENT, INC.”; MONTROSE COUNTY, COLORADO, a government entity; SHERIFF RICK DUNLAP, sued in his official capacity; UNDERSHERIFF ADAM MURDIE, sued in his official capacity; COMMANDER ALAN MILLER, in his individual and official capacities; SERGEANT ROGELLE STROLE, in her individual and official capacities; SERGEANT DEAN MCNULTY, in his individual and official capacities; SERGEANT BOBBY STRAIT, in his individual and official capacities; SERGEANT GARYN IVERSON, in his individual and official capacities; NANCY KLIENAPFEL, in her individual capacity; UNK Counselor, in his/her individual capacity; UNK LCSW, in his/her individual capacity; UNK NURSE, in his/her individual capacity; and UNK NURSE, in his/her individual capacity; Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTIONS TO
DISMISS
William J Martínez, United States District Judge.
This
lawsuit alleges that Dillon Blodgett received
constitutionally deficient medical care while in pretrial
detention at the Montrose County Detention Center
(“MCDC”) in Montrose, Colorado, resulting in
Blodgett taking his own life. Adrienne Leonard
(“Plaintiff”), personally and as the personal
representative of the Estate of Blodgett (“the Blodgett
Estate”), sues numerous individuals and entities that
are allegedly responsible for Blodgett's death in some
way.
Currently
before the Court are two motions to dismiss challenging the
First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 54). The first motion to
dismiss is brought by Defendants Correct Care Solutions, LLC,
and Correctional Healthcare Companies, LLC (collectively,
“CHC”). (ECF No. 59.) The second motion is
brought by “Montrose County, Colorado, ” Sheriff
Rick Dunlap, Undersheriff Adam Murdie, Commander Alan Miller,
and Sergeants Garyn Iverson, Dean McNulty, Bobby Strait, and
Rogelle Strole (collectively, “the Montrose County
Defendants”). (ECF Nos. 61 & 70.) Sheriff Dunlap
and Undersheriff Murdie are sued in their official
capacities. (ECF No. 54.) Commander Miller and Sergeants
Iverson, McNulty, Strait, and Strole are sued in their
official and individual capacities. (Id.) For the
reasons explained below, the motions to dismiss are granted
in part and denied in part.
I.
LEGAL STANDARD
Under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a party may move to
dismiss a claim in a complaint for “failure to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted.” The Rule
12(b)(6) standard requires the Court to “assume the
truth of the plaintiff's well-pleaded factual allegations
and view them in the light most favorable to the
plaintiff.” Ridge at Red Hawk, LLC v. Schneider, 493
F.3d 1174, 1177 (10th Cir. 2007). In ruling on such a motion,
the dispositive inquiry is “whether the complaint
contains ‘enough facts to state a claim to relief that
is plausible on its face.'” Id. (quoting
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)).
Granting a motion to dismiss “is a harsh remedy which
must be cautiously studied, not only to effectuate the spirit
of the liberal rules of pleading but also to protect the
interests of justice.” Dias v. City & Cnty. of
Denver, 567 F.3d 1169, 1178 (10th Cir. 2009) (internal
quotation marks omitted). “Thus, ‘a well-pleaded
complaint may proceed even if it strikes a savvy judge that
actual proof of those facts is improbable, and that a
recovery is very remote and unlikely.'”
Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556).
II.
BACKGROUND
The
Court assumes the truth of the following facts pled in the
First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 54), documents attached
thereto, and documents embraced by the pleadings for purpose
of resolving the motions.[1]
This
case arises from the tragic and untimely death of Blodgett
while in MCDC custody. On November 18, 2015, Blodgett was
booked into MCDC. (ECF No. 54 ¶ 38.) Blodgett reportedly
refused to speak to anyone for two days. (ECF No. 84-1 at 1.)
On November 20, 2015, Blodgett completed the intake and
screening process and was placed in solitary confinement in
cell C-401. (Id. ¶¶ 39-40.) It is unclear
from the facts before the Court why Blodgett was placed in
solitary confinement.
The
Montrose County Sheriff's Office (MCSO) maintains the
“MCSO Justice Center Detention Facility Standard
Operating Procedure, ” which contains procedures for
addressing suicidal inmates. (Id. ¶ 92; ECF No.
54-1.) Section 23.107(A) states
When an arrestee is brought into the Detention Facility, the
booking staff will complete a screening form, which includes
asking the arrestee if he/she has ever had a history of
suicide attempts, (Ask only when not intoxicated). Positive
responses and/or unusual behavior are immediately brought to
the attention of all the detention deputies. If the response
or unusual behavior is determined to be enough to warrant
calling the Mental Health Center, the Booking Deputy should
do so.
(ECF No. 54-1.) Section 23.107(B) commands that
“[i]nmates that are potentially suicidal shall be
searched thoroughly, and then segregated from the general
population for close observation. Necessary measures will be
taken to prevent or eliminate any immediate danger.”
(Id.)
On the
afternoon of November 20, 2015, Blodgett completed an intake
questionnaire. He answered the following questions about his
mental health and thoughts of suicide:
19. Are you or have you been receiving mental health
counseling? (If yes enter note below.)
No
20. Have you ever thought about committing suicide? (If yes
enter note below.)
Yes
21. Are you thinking about now? (If yes enter note below.)
No
22. Has anyone in your immediate family committed or
attempted suicide? (If yes enter note below.)
No
26. Does the person's wrist have any scars? (If yes enter
note below.)
No . . .
44. Suicidal? (If yes enter note below.)
No
(ECF Nos. 54 ¶ 41; 84-2 at 3.) In addition, the intake
form beneath the signature line says “Yes states in
‘alright' health as of 11/20/15 @ 1350.”
(Id.)
On
November 21, 2015, Sergeant Strole asked Nancy
Klienapfel[2] of Midwestern Colorado Mental Health to
talk with Blodgett. (ECF Nos. 54 ¶ 44; 84-1 at 1.)
Klienapfel was at MCDC to assess another inmate, but agreed
to examine Blodgett at Sergeant Strole's request. (ECF
No. 84-1 at 1.) Klienapfel recommended to Sergeant Strole and
Blodgett that Blodgett “be able to see Miranda
ASAP.” (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff construes this
statement as a recommendation that Blodgett receive
counseling through Jail Based Behavioral Services. (ECF No.
54 ¶ 45.) Klienapfel also assessed Blodgett for suicide
risk and stated that he was not a risk. (ECF No. 84-1 at 2.)
On the “Pre Test Suicide Likert” scale and the
“Post Test Suicide Likert” scale, Klienapfel
rated Blodgett as “0. No. thoughts about suicide. This
is how an average person feels about suicide.”
(Id. at 1, 9.) She also commented that Blodgett was
“at low risk of self harm but in need of SA counseling
and f/u while in the jail.” (Id. at 3.)
Blodgett
sent written requests for mental health services on November
24, 2015, December 15, 2015, and January 11, 2016. (ECF No.
54 ¶¶ 46, 53, 58.) In response to each request,
within one day, an unnamed nurse (identified in the First
Amended Complaint as “UNK Nurse” and a CHC
employee) informed Blodgett that he was “on the
list.” (Id. ¶¶ 47, 53, 59; ECF No.
54-4.)
In
addition to Blodgett's own written requests for mental
health services, his public defender Kristen Hindman sent an
e-mail to Commander Miller on November 30, 2015,
“indicating that Mr. Blodgett had a history [of] being
on suicide watch while in custody and could benefit from
counseling.” (ECF No. 54 ¶ 49.) It is unclear
exactly what Hindman conveyed to Commander Miller because the
e-mail is merely summarized in the First Amended Complaint
and not in the record before the Court. Commander Miller
responded that same day stating that Blodgett had submitted
two requests: one for mental health treatment and another for
medical care. (Id. ¶ 50.) He told Hindman that
Blodgett received medical care that day and was “on the
list” to see the mental health provider. (Id.)
While
in custody, MCDC provided Blodgett with three sessions of
mental health services. On December 2, 2015, Blodgett saw a
counselor allegedly employed or contracted by CHC (“CHC
Counselor”). (Id. ¶ 51; ECF No. 54-2.)
Blodgett reported to the CHC Counselor that a friend had
committed suicide and Blodgett himself was having occasional
thoughts of suicide. (ECF No. 54-2 at 1.) CHC Counselor
diagnosed Blodgett with depression, anxiety, and some suicide
ideation but determined not to start suicide precautions at
that time. (Id.)
On
January 2, 2016, Blodgett saw another mental health provider,
identified in the First Amended Complaint as “UNK
LCSW” and alleged to be a CHC employee. (ECF No. 54
¶¶ 54-55; see ECF No. 54-3.) UNK LCSW diagnosed
Blodgett with major depressive disorder and anxiety. (ECF No.
54 ¶ 56.) Under “prior self-harm, ” UNK LCSW
noted “hanging - 2 mo[ths] ago-while in DOC.”
(Id.; ECF No. 54-3 at 1.) UNK LCSW did not, however,
mark “suicidal” under “thought
content.” (ECF No. 54-3 at 1.)
On
January 14, 2016, Blodgett again saw CHC Counselor, after
requesting to see “Mental Health, Brett if possible,
for personal mental health-related issues.” (ECF Nos.
54 ¶ 60; 54-4; 54-5.) CHC Counselor noted that Blodgett
had escaped prior custody at Montrose County Community
Corrections “because he was feeling suicidal and needed
to get to his parents” and noted that Blodgett had
“occasional thoughts” of suicide. (ECF No. 54-5
at 1; ECF No. 54 ¶ 61.) CHC Counselor diagnosed Blodgett
with depression and anxiety but determined that suicide
precautions were “not applicable at this time.”
(ECF No. 54-5 at 1; ECF No. 54 ¶ 62.)
On the
evening of January 20, 2016, Blodgett was provided a second
towel. (ECF No. 54 ¶ 65.) Following a security check
around 11:00 p.m., Blodgett was found hanging by his neck
from a towel in his cell in solitary confinement.
(Id. ¶ 66.) MCDC staff was unable to revive
Blodgett. (Id. ¶ 67.) Three days later,
Blodgett was declared dead at St. Mary's Hospital in
Grand Junction, Colorado. (Id. ¶ 68.)
III.
ANALYSIS
Before
addressing CHC and Montrose County Defendants' motions to
dismiss, the Court first clarifies the 42 U.S.C. § 1983
claims at issue. Claim 1 against all defendants alleges that
CHC and Montrose County Defendants deprived Blodgett of his
rights by their deliberate indifference to his serious
medical needs. (ECF No. 54 ¶¶ 100-10.) For
pretrial detainees such as Blodgett, the source of
the constitutional right to adequate medical care is the
Fourteenth Amendment, not the Eighth. See Bell v.
Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 535 & n.16 (1979).
Claim 2
against all defendants states that CHC and Montrose County
Defendants deprived Blodgett of life without due process
under the Fourteenth Amendment. CHC contends that Claim 2 is
duplicative of Plaintiff's § 1983 deliberate
indifference claim. (ECF No. 59 at 11-12.) Plaintiff appears
to concede that her Fourteenth Amendment claim is premised on
deliberate indifference to medical needs. (ECF No. 73 at
8-9.) Thus, it appears that Claim 2 duplicates Claim 1 and
may be dismissed. Alternatively, Plaintiff could be
attempting to assert a procedural or substantive due process
claim. However, there are no allegations or facts to support
a claim that any defendant provided “inadequate
process” prior to taking the life of Blodgett or that
any challenged governmental action would “shock the
conscience of federal judges.” See Zwygart v. Bd.
of Cnty. Comm'rs, 483 F.3d 1086, 1093 (10th Cir.
2007) (internal quotation marks omitted); Tonkovich v.
Kansas Bd. of Regents, 159 F.3d 504, 528 (10th Cir.
1998). Absent any allegations plausibly related to procedural
or substantive due process allegations, the Court finds it
appropriate to dismiss Claim 2.
Claim 4
against Montrose County Defendants also alleges
“Fourteenth Amendment Violations.” (ECF No. 54 at
27.) That claim appears to challenge Blodgett's
conditions of confinement and access to medical care while in
solitary confinement. (Id. ¶ 138.) To the
extent that Plaintiff challenges Blodgett's access to
adequate medical care, this claim is part and parcel of
Plaintiff's § 1983 deliberate indifference claim of
Claim 1. However, Plaintiff may also be challenging
Blodgett's conditions of confinement before his death.
That challenge is addressed in the analysis below.
A.
CHC Motion to Dismiss ...