Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Jenkins v. Woody

United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Richmond Division

January 21, 2017

VIRGINIA PAIGE JENKINS, Administratrix of Estate of Erin Jenkins, Plaintiff,
v.
SHERIFF C.T. WOODY, et al., Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION

          M. Hannah Eauck United States Judge

         This matter comes before the Court on the following motions: (1) Defendant Sheriff C.T. Woody's Motion for Summary Judgment, (ECF No. 137); and, (2) Defendant Deputy Elizabeth Beaver's Motion for Summary Judgment, (ECF No. 145). Sheriff Woody and Deputy Beaver filed the motions for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56.[1]

         Plaintiff Virginia Paige Jenkins[2] has responded to both motions for summary judgment, (ECF Nos. 165, 167, [3] 180), and both Sheriff Woody and Deputy Beaver have replied, (ECF Nos. 200, 201). The Court heard oral argument, and the matter is ripe for disposition. The Court exercises jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331[4] and 1367.[5] For the reasons that follow, the Court will grant in part and deny in part the Sheriff Woody Motion for Summary Judgment and deny the Deputy Beaver Motion for Summary Judgment.

         I. Factual and Procedural Background

         A. Procedural Background

         Plaintiff filed a Complaint against various defendants alleging, on behalf of Ms. Jenkins's estate, violations of the Fourteenth Amendment, [6] state law negligence, and medical malpractice. (ECF No. 1.) After Plaintiff filed her First Amended Complaint, (ECF No. 25), this Court granted in part and denied in part two motions to dismiss filed separately by Sheriff Woody and Defendant Correct Care Solutions, LLC ("CCS"), (ECF No. 50). With leave of court, Plaintiff filed her Second Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 51.) Following an Initial Pretrial Conference, Plaintiff requested leave to file a third amended complaint, (ECF No. 86), which the Court granted orally at a hearing. Plaintiff then filed her Third Amended Complaint, adding the following as party defendants: Nurse Demetrice Smith, Licensed Clinical Social Worker ("LCSW") Tatjana Jerkovic, Corporal Vivian Hudson-Parham, Lieutenant Johnathan Scott, and the John Doe(s) responsible for removing Ms. Jenkins from medical observation on August 1, 2014. (ECF No.92.)

         On July 29, 2016, Plaintiff filed her Motion for Sanctions against Sheriff Woody "for intentional destruction of relevant evidence, deliberate concealment of relevant evidence and for deliberate non-compliance with discovery rules."[7] (Mot. Sanctions 1, ECF No. 112.) Plaintiff argues that Sheriff Woody failed to preserve video camera footage taken of Ms. Jenkins's jail cell which would show the events "leading up to and surrounding [Ms.] Jenkins's death." (Mem. Supp. Mot. Sanctions 2, ECF No. 113.) Sheriff Woody filed a response opposing the requested sanctions, (ECF No. 114), as did Deputy Beaver, Corporal Hudson-Parham, and Lieutenant Scott, (ECF No. 116). Because it had to assess prejudice, the Court reserved ruling on the Motion for Sanctions until the parties presented their arguments for summary judgment. The Court issues a separate opinion regarding sanctions contemporaneous to this one.

         On November 30, 2016, upon motion by the parties, the Court dismissed the following defendants from this action: Crissy Royall, Aikysha Paige, Demetrice Smith, Khairul Bashar Mohammed Emran, M.D., and Tatjana Jerkovic. On December 20, 2016, the Court held a hearing on the Joint Petition for Approval of a Wrongful Death Settlement filed by Plaintiff and CCS. (ECFNo. 126.) The Court approved the wrongful death settlement between Plaintiff and CCS and dismissed CCS from the case. (ECF No. 174.) The Court dismissed Corporal Hudson- Parham and Lieutenant Scott on motion by the parties earlier this month. (ECF No. 218.) Only Sheriff Woody and Deputy Beaver remain as defendants.

         The following causes of action against Sheriff Woody and Deputy Beaver, articulated in the Third Amended Complaint, remain:

"COUNT I: § 1983 Defendant Woody - Policy or Custom of Deliberate Indifference to Serious Medical Needs Resulting in Cruel and Unusual Punishment"
"COUNT II: § 1983 Claim Against Sheriff Woody (Supervisory Liability) - Deliberate Indifference to Serious Medical Needs Resulting in Cruel and Unusual Punishment"
"COUNT III: § 1983 Claim Against Jail Staff[8] - Deliberate Indifference to Serious Medical Needs Resulting in Cruel and Unusual Punishment"
"COUNT VI: State Law Claims Against Defendant Sheriff Woody and Jail Staff- Gross Negligence"

         Sheriff Woody moves for summary judgment on Counts I, II, and VI. Deputy Beaver moves for summary judgment on Counts III and VI. Plaintiff opposes summary judgment on all counts.

         B. Factual Background

         This action involves Ms. Jenkins's death while in custody as a pretrial detainee at the RCJC. When the RCJC opened, it was equipped with a new video recording system that included more than 500 cameras covering the jail, inside and out. On August 1, 2014, the night before Ms. Jenkins's death, and her last night in the RCJC, cameras were "working and operational" and recording properly in and around her cell.[9] (Witham Dep. 82, ECF No 113-2.) Sheriff Woody testified that video surveillance in the jail serves many purposes:

Well, live action that can be monitored on certain on-on-on the pods. I can come in here and, if an incident happened yesterday or two weeks from now, put the date, you put the time in and you can replay the whole thing. And you can use it for investigative purposes. You can use it for safety purposes. You can use it for people that's-the resident them self [sic] who lies oftenly [sic] about how something happened and what happened before.
And so it's a-sort of a truth serum. It's been very, very helpful to us employment-wise as well as safety-wise and for the residents when they file grievances and just a real live thing of what's happening, what-what really happened.

(Woody Dep. 27, ECF No. 113-4 (emphasis added).) On August 1, 2014, four days into the RCJC's operations, Ms. Jenkins was found in her cell incoherent, incontinent, and not breathing. During the five hours before Ms. Jenkins was found incoherent in her isolation cell, the RCJC's video system recorded all activity there. Ms. Jenkins was transported from the RCJC to VCU Medical Hospital, where she died on August 2, 2014.

         1. Ms. Jenkins's Detention at the Richmond Citv Justice Center

         Ms. Jenkins entered the RCJC[10] as a pretrial detainee on July 25, 2014, three days before the RCJC's formal opening. After CCS[11] performed a medical screening, Ms. Jenkins was placed on an opiate withdrawal protocol and housed in Section[12] 3C of the RCJC's general population. Upon screening, Ms. Jenkins's medical presentation was healthy. At some point on Wednesday, July 30, 2014, Ms. Jenkins was transferred to Section 3A1, an isolation cell. Section 3A1 is depicted variously in the record as being a medical, mental health, or detox isolation section.

         a. July 30, 2014; Confusion Over Ms. Jenkins's Transfer

         The record conflicts as to how Ms. Jenkins's transfer to medical isolation on July 30, 2014 occurred. Deputy Priscilla Wright, who was monitoring Ms. Jenkins's first location, Section 3C, contacted medical. Deputy Wright testified that she wanted to move Ms. Jenkins for Ms. Jenkins's own protection because she was waking people up and they were "getting a little irritated." (Wright Dep.11, ECF No. 165-8.) Deputy Wright remembered Nurse Yukima Nuttall helping Ms. Jenkins, but also testified that "medical didn't want to move [Ms. Jenkins], so I had to call Classification, Mr. Bassfield also." (Id.)

         On the other hand, the medical personnel implicated in approving Ms. Jenkins's transfer deny involvement. LCSW Tatjana Jerkovic denies signing an inmate housing form requesting medical isolation for Ms. Jenkins's mental health. Nurse Nuttal also testified that she did not recall speaking to a Sheriffs deputy during that time and that she does not recall examining Jenkins and arranging for a transfer to Section 3 Al. Nurse Nutall testified that she would have made notes had she examined Ms. Jenkins. Nurse Nutall also swore that she could not have been involved in "doing housing transfers" because CCS protocol prevented it. (Nutall Dep. 23, ECF No. 165-10.) The record lacks any contemporaneous record of Nurse Nutall evaluating Ms.Jenkins prior to the transfer to Section 3A1.

         b. July 30 and July 31, 2014: Ms. Jenkins's Symptoms Commence

         The July 30, 2014 Logbook indicates that, at 4:09 a.m., Corporal Vivian Hudson-Parham[13] brought Ms. Jenkins from Section 3C to Section 3A1 "per Nurse Nutall." (Logbook 8, ECF No. 138-8.) Deputy Beaver[14] had responsibility for monitoring inmates on the third floor, which included Section 3A1, between 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. At 5:28 a.m., Deputy Beaver noticed Ms. Jenkins "talking to [her]self and using a "pretend phone." (Logbook 10, ECF No. 138-8.) Two nurses had contact with Jenkins during Deputy Beaver's July 30, 2014 overnight shift: Nurse Maya Vaughn took Ms. Jenkins's blood pressure at 9:20 p.m.; and, Nurse Daniels checked all the third-floor inmates at 11:05 p.m.

         Deputy Janet Wilkes-Gaskins relieved Deputy Beaver on Thursday, July 31, 2014, at 7:00 a.m. Deputy Wilkes-Gaskin noted at 7:46 a.m. that "[Ms.] Jenkins did not eat or drink anything." (Logbook 13, ECF No. 138-8.) At 9:01 a.m., Dr. Emran[15] ordered Ms. Jenkins's transfer from Section 3A1 to Section 2Med.[16] At 9:30 a.m., Dr. Emran examined Ms. Jenkins, and in a Progress Note, noted a "history of Percocet abuse" and "hallucinating." (Emran Physician's Order of Erin N. Jenkins, ECF Nos. 138-11, 147-6.) Dr. Emran further noted the physical examination of Ms. Jenkins as "unremarkable." (Emran Progress Note, ECF No. 138-11.) In testimony, Dr. Emran explained that Ms. Jenkins showed no physical symptoms of withdrawal, but he saw her talking, for a short time, to someone who was not there. Otherwise, Ms. Jenkins appropriately responded to each examination question. Dr. Emran testified that Ms. Jenkins's hallucination was not consistent with withdrawal or her medication, and that her physical exam was normal. Dr. Emran explained that her brief hallucination "did not make sense with her physical examination, " so he ordered her kept for observation in Section 2Med. (Emran Dep. 90, 109, ECF No. 147-2.) Dr. Emran also ordered the following: (1) that Ms. Jenkins's vitals be taken each shift for the next seven days; (2) that Ms. Jenkins receive Gatorade three times a day; and, (3) that a psychiatrist evaluate Ms. Jenkins.

         Nurse Smith[17] remembered that Ms. Jenkins appeared alert and responsive to questions, but also recalled Ms. Jenkins hallucinating. Specifically, Ms. Jenkins sat up on the bed and said, "Sit your ass down, girl." (Smith Dep. 33, ECF No. 147-7.) After Dr. Emran asked Ms. Jenkins who she was talking to, she said, "My daughter over there behind the bed." (Id.) Nurse Smith testified that Ms. Jenkins said something about her daughter showing off, but that Ms. Jenkins then "snapped back" and began answering questions appropriately again. (Id.) Nurse Smith had the responsibility of carrying out Dr. Emran's order about psychiatric evaluation, but testified that she "did not follow up" on that order because "all she had to do" was "make sure they knew [Ms. Jenkins] needed a psych eval, " and she did so.[18] (Smith Dep. 53-54, ECF No. 138-12.) The psychiatrist never evaluated Ms. Jenkins.

         On July 31, 2014, and into August 1, 2014, the RCJC housed Ms. Jenkins in Section 2Med with another inmate. Deputy Dwight Gaines was assigned to Section 2Med for the 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. shift on August 1, 2014, and was responsible for security in the medical office. At about 4:50 p.m., Deputy Gaines received a phone call from Ms. Jenkins's cellmate, who stated that she had been in a fight with Ms. Jenkins. Deputy Gaines visited the cell with Nurse Royall, who assessed Ms. Jenkins. Absent any indication of permission or approval from Dr. Emran, Ms. Jenkins was transferred from Section 2Med to Section 3A1.[19]

         Deputy Lakeisha McRae, who assisted Ms. Jenkins during the transfer, saw Ms. Jenkins sit up as if she were smoking a cigarette and driving a car. Deputy McRae testified that Deputy Gaines was in the room when this happened. She also testified that, during the same interaction, Ms. Jenkins refused to put on her shoes because bugs were on them, despite the fact that no bugs were there. Deputy McRae acted as if she were stomping the bugs to encourage Ms. Jenkins to get dressed so she could be transferred. Deputy Gaines confirmed that he saw Deputy McRae pretend to stomp the imaginary bugs "on [Ms. Jenkins's] shoes or her jumper." (Gaines Dep. 23, ECF No. 138-15.) McRae did not report either of these events to the Deputy on duty in Section 3A1 when transferring Ms. Jenkins.

         c. August 1, 2014: Deputy Beaver's Overnight Shift in Section 3A1

         Beginning at 7:00 p.m. on August 1, 2014, Deputy Beaver again was assigned to supervise the third floor of the RCJC, including isolation cells and Section 3A1, where Ms. Jenkins was housed. Deputy Beaver stated that when she started her shift, she was told during pass down: "We have somebody in Cell Number 9 back from medical, keep an eye."[20] (March 14, 2016 Beaver Dep. ("Beaver Dep. I") 11, ECF No. 138-20.) Section 3A1 has cameras in each cell.[21] In March 2015, Deputy Beaver testified that, as she started her shift, she did not see Ms. Jenkins throw the food tray but presumed she had "thrown" her food tray and not eaten because she could see the tray under Ms. Jenkins's bed.[22] (Beaver Dep. 1120, ECF No. 147-1.) Deputy Beaver testified that she did not know "what [she] needed to look for in particular as [she]... was paying extra attention to [Ms.] Jenkins." (Id. at 25-26.)

         Deputy Beaver confirmed that, per the Richmond City Sheriffs Office SOPs, she performed nine security checks, twice an hour, between 7:00 p.m. and 10:48 p.m. In each Logbook entry, Deputy Beaver wrote that the security check was "10/4, " meaning that she did not see anything unusual. Only a single entry regarding Ms. Jenkins exists in Deputy Beaver's Logbook for those five hours: she lists Ms. Jenkins among the roster in Cell 9 of Section 3A1. Deputy Beaver testified that she entered multiple "10/4"s because none of the behavior she saw Ms. Jenkins exhibit was "unusual" for the Section 3A1 medical/mental/detox isolation tier. (Beaver Dep. I 59, ECF No. 147-1.)

         Deputy Beaver also testified to activity not documented in the Logbooks. Deputy Beaver stated that, on August 1, 2014, she was performing additional security checks, but explained that she does not record security checks if she makes extra ones. Deputy Beaver said she turned on the microphone in Ms. Jenkins's cell, conducted security checks every thirty minutes, and observed Ms. Jenkins by camera. Deputy Beaver also indicated that she had voice interactions with Ms. Jenkins several times, during which she asked Ms. Jenkins whether she was okay.

         Deputy Beaver saw Ms. Jenkins talking to herself, walking the cell during the evening, using a toilet paper roll like a telephone, and tearing up paper and feeding it through the food slot, pretending to feed her absent daughter. Rather than calling such behavior "usual, " Deputy Beaver later testified that Ms. Jenkins was acting "like somebody who was on a drug" and "real weird like." (Beaver Dep. II12, ECF No. 165-24.) Deputy Beaver confirmed that Ms. Jenkins never asked her for help; never asked to be taken to the medical department; never asked for medical assistance; never said she was in pain; never said she was in discomfort; and, never reported abdominal or stomach pain. Deputy Beaver also stated that she did not call medical to tell them about Ms. Jenkins's "weird" behavior because when she took over the tier, she had been told that Ms. Jenkins had "just been put back on there. I made the call when she peed on herself."[23] (Beaver Dep. II24, ECF No. 165-24.)

         d. August 1, 2014: The Moments Immediately Preceding Ms. Jenkins's Collapse

         At 10:48 p.m., Deputy Beaver performed a security check. At approximately 10:59 p.m., Deputy Beaver observed Ms. Jenkins from the control tower and noticed that she had been seated on the toilet for a long time. Deputy Beaver testified that Ms. Jenkins sat on the toilet for about ten to fifteen minutes, but also testified that she "had sat on her toilet for about an hour." (Beaver Dep. II 13, ECF No. 180-9.) Deputy Beaver visited Ms. Jenkins's cell to ask if she was okay. Deputy Beaver saw that Ms. Jenkins had urinated and asked her why her sheet was under the bed. Deputy Beaver received a jumbled response in return. At 10:59 p.m., Deputy Beaver called Nurse Paige and, without telling her about symptoms other than Ms. Jenkins's incontinence, asked Nurse Paige to see Ms. Jenkins. Nurse Paige informed Deputy Beaver that she would be there "as soon as possible." (Richmond City Sheriffs Office Incident Report, August 2, 2014, ECF No. 138-22.)

         At some point either just before or just after her call to Nurse Paige, Deputy Beaver observed Ms. Jenkins sit on the bed and lay back. Testifying that she always inspects for "hanging and chest movement, " (Beaver Dep. II13, ECF No. 180-9), Deputy Beaver said she looked again and did not see a rise and fall of Ms. Jenkins's chest. After discovering that her radio battery did not work, Deputy Beaver called a medical emergency by telephone.[24] Corporal Hudson-Parham and Lieutenant Scott[25] then arrived at Ms. Jenkins's cell to assist with the medical emergency. Medical staff showed up immediately thereafter and started CPR. Emergency medical responders eventually revived Ms. Jenkins, and she was transported to VCU Medical Center. Ms. Jenkins suffered a cardiac arrest. Ms. Jenkins's family ultimately removed her from life support, and Ms. Jenkins passed away on August 2, 2014. On October 20, 2014, Medical Examiner Kevin D. Whaley determined the cause of Ms. Jenkins's death to be "Acute Peritonitis Due to Perforated Duodenal Ulcer." (Virginia Department of Health, Office of the Chief Medical Examiner, Dr. Whaley Report of Investigation 1, ECF No. 138-25.)

         2. Background of the RCJC and Sheriff Woody

         Sheriff Woody has served as the elected Sheriff for the City of Richmond since January 1, 2006. He holds responsibility for the operation of the RCJC, which formally opened on July 28, 2014. The RCJC is an air-conditioned correctional facility designed to provide for direct supervision of inmates by staff. The RCJC includes a medical housing unit intended to provide onsite care to inmates. Inmates requiring additional observation may be placed in an isolated medical unit equipped with cameras and microphones. SOP 249 provides that only the Chief Physician or a designee may place residents in the facility's medical and mental health tier.

         An independent medical contractor provides all inmate healthcare services at the RCJC, including medical and mental health services. When the RCJC opened in July 2014, Sheriff Woody contracted with CCS to provide healthcare services. CCS employed Dr. Emran as the licensed physician responsible for supervising the RCJC's healthcare services.

         3. Department of Corrections Audits

         The Department of Corrections (the "DOC") did not audit the RCJC in 2014 because of the move to the new facility, which DOC had approved. On March 26 and 27, 2013, the DOC conducted an annual jail inspection of the former Richmond City Jail. The audit found the former Richmond City Jail 99% compliant with all Life, Health, and Safety Standards. Specifically, the audit determined that the RCJC: (1) provided inmate access to medical services; (2) required First Aid and CPR certification for security staff; and, (3) performed random twice-per-hour security checks and documented inspections and unusual incidents.

         On November 9 and 10, 2015, the DOC conducted its first audit of the RCJC. The DOC found the RCJC 100% compliant with all standards. The 2015 audit, unlike the one in 2013, left blank the number of deaths that occurred in the RCJC.

         4. Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Services Training Requirements

         Under Virginia law, the Department of Criminal Justice Services (the "DCJS") has the power to "[e]stablish minimum entry-level, in-service, and advanced training standards for persons employed as deputy sheriffs and jail officers by local criminal justice agencies." Va. Code § 9.1-102(9). The DCJS mandates 400 hours of Compulsory Minimum Training and 100 hours of field training for certification. 6 VAC 20-20-21.

         The DCJS's training for jail officers includes training on rounds, patrols, inspections, security checks, logbooks, observing inmates, preventive patrol techniques, unusual odors and sounds, head counts, and intake and screening. 6 VAC 20-20-50. The DCJS requires deputies to comply with the training standards within twelve months of appointment. 6 VAC 20-50-40. Newly appointed deputies who have not yet attended basic training receive two weeks of "On the Job" training. (Allmon[26] Aff. ¶ 8, ECF No. 138-30.)

         All basic, field, and "On the Job" training includes training on how to perform security checks. SOP 202 requires twice-hourly security checks on inmates. Deputies learn to observe each inmate and to check for unusual behavior or signs of illness or injury. SOP 202 requires that deputies, during security checks, look for sickness, injury, assaults, suicides or attempted suicides, and odd or "inappropriate behavior denoting possible mental disorders." (Richmond City Sheriffs Office SOP 202, ECF No. 138-7.) However, nothing in this record lists any training to on how identify "inappropriate behavior denoting possible mental disorders."[27] (Id.)

         Physical, suicidal, and emergent events do appear to be taught. For example, if an inmate appears to be sleeping, deputies are trained to observe the rise and fall of the chest and to look for other bodily movements. If no movement is observed, deputies are trained to make verbal contact or other audio techniques. If an inmate remains unresponsive, deputies are trained to seek medical assistance by giving a "10-18" signal, indicating a medical emergency. Deputies also receive annual First Aid/CPR/AED training.[28]

         At some point prior to the opening of the RCJC, all deputies were provided access to policy handbooks for the new facility, which the deputies were expected to study and learn. The deputies also took tours and received on-site training for supervision of all inmate populations, including training on proper responses to medical and safety incidents. However, while the attached PowerPoint presentation of that training includes some "slides" on how to respond to medical emergencies, it includes no training, or mention, of observing an inmate's mental health during observation or rounds. Nor does it specify what might be a "noteworthy event or incident" that it suggests would be worth recording in a "Log Book." (City of Richmond Justice Center Pod Familiarization Training, ECF No. 138-36.) Regarding her own RCJC training, Deputy Beaver confirmed only that she was taken to a computer and shown how to use the video observation system, including manipulating the cameras by zooming in and out, and turning the audio system on and off. The record is bereft of any other training Deputy Beaver received.

         Section 3A1, where Deputy Beaver worked and Ms. Jenkins was housed, is described at various places throughout the record as a medical, mental health, or detox isolation unit. For instance, Colonel Burnett testified that Section 3A1 is a medical or mental health pod "where they may deem that you may have mental health issues which would require you to be locked in more closely" with individual cells and cameras in each cell. (Burnett Dep. 84, ECF No. 165-2; see also Royall Dep. 76, ECF No. 138-17 (describing 3A1 and as mental health and detox observation area).) However, the record indicates that the deputies assigned to Section 3A1 did not receive any special training and, like other deputies, they never received instruction on proper observation to know when to report to medical staff inmates who are experiencing symptoms that could be caused by either a psychological or physiological condition.

         First, citing Lieutenant Colonel Allmon as the expert on training, Sheriff Woody testified that he did not know what kind of training the Sherriff Office's employees would receive "with respect to the recognition of issues that need to be sent to medical for evaluation." (Woody Dep. 64, ECF No. 165-3.) According to Colonel Burnett, any deputy can be placed in Section 3A1, and all deputies are trained "the same way"; deputies receive no different training or require specific qualifications to serve on a mental health, medical tier. (Burnett Dep. 30, ECF No. 165-2.) Deputy Beaver testified that Section 3A2 houses inmates in isolation for discipline issues and that deputies do nothing different when observing the two sides. Lieutenant Scott, without citing a SOP or other training document, confirmed that, on Section 3A1, talking to someone "who is not there" would not be unusual and that a deputy need not report such behavior to medical unless an inmate is a hazard to herself or the cell. (Scott Dep. 78-79, ECF No. 147-2.) Deputy Beaver testified that Ms. Jenkins's behavior on August 1, 2014, was not unusual for Section 3A1, but that she did not know "what [she] needed to look for in particular as [she]... was paying extra attention to [Ms.] Jenkins." (Id. at 25-26.) Also without identifying a policy, Lieutenant Scott indicated that if someone were hallucinating for five to ten minutes, he might call medical personnel.

         When CCS offered, Sheriff Woody declined to have CCS "educate security staff on pertinent medical issues, " including: "Emergency response"; "Symptom recognition"; "Treatment recognition"; "Recognizing signs and symptoms of mental illness"; "Urgent and emergent medical conditions"; and "Signs and symptoms of chemical dependency." (CCS Proposed Jail Staff Training Program, ECF No. 165-4; see also Sheriff Woody Dep. 66, ECF No.165-3.) Sheriff Woody testified that he did not want medical people to train his guards because "the medical people [are] the experts." (Woody Dep. 66, ECF No. 165-3.) Sheriff Woody said: "We have a standard that is required by the Department of Criminal Justice Services. And as long as we are meeting that standard and passing it on a yearly basis, that's all we're required to do." (Id.)

         II. Analysis: Motions for Summary Judgment

         A. Summary Judgment Standard

         Summary judgment under Rule 56 is appropriate only when the Court, viewing the record as a whole and in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, determines that there exists no genuine issue of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-24 (1986); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248-50 (1986). "A fact is material if the existence or non-existence thereof could lead a jury to different resolutions of the case." Thomas v. FTS USA, LLC, No. 3:13cv825, 2016 WL3653878, *4 (E.D. Va. June 30, 2016) (citing Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. at 248). Once a party has properly filed evidence supporting the motion for summary judgment, the nonmoving party may not rest upon mere allegations in the pleadings, but instead must set forth specific facts illustrating genuine issues for trial. Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 322-24. These facts must be presented in the form of exhibits and sworn affidavits. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c).

         A court views the evidence and reasonable inferences drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. at 255. Whether an inference is reasonable must be considered in conjunction with competing inferences to the contrary. Sylvia Dev. Corp. v. Calvert Cty., 48 F.3d 810, 818 (4th Cir. 1995). Nonetheless, the nonmoving "party is entitled 'to have the credibility of his evidence as forecast assumed.'" Miller v. Leathers, 913 F.2d 1085, 1087 (4th Cir. 1990) (en banc) (quoting Charbonnages de France v. Smith, 597 F.2d 406, 414 (4th Cir. 1979)). Ultimately, the court must adhere to the affirmative obligation to bar factually unsupportable claims from proceeding to trial. Felty v. Graves-Humphreys Co., 818 F.2d 1126, 1128 (4th Cir. 1987) (citing Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 323-24). The ultimate inquiry in examining a motion for summary judgment is whether there is "sufficient evidence favoring the nonmoving party for a jury to return a verdict for that party. If the evidence is merely colorable, or is not significantly probative, summary judgment may be granted." Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. at 249-50.

         B. Sheriff Woodv's Motion for Summary Judgment

         Sheriff Woody moves for summary judgment on three counts: "Count I: § 1983 Defendant Woody - Policy or Custom of Deliberate Indifference to Serious Medical Needs Resulting in Cruel and Unusual Punishment"; "Count II: § 1983 Claim Against Sheriff Woody (Supervisory Liability) - Deliberate Indifference to Serious Medical Needs Resulting in Cruel and Unusual Punishment"; and, "Count VI: State Law Claims Against Defendant Sheriff Woody and Jail Staff- Gross Negligence." For the reasons that follow, the Court will deny Sheriff Woody's Motion for Summary Judgment as to Counts I and IV and grant Sheriff Woody's Motion for Summary Judgment as to Count II.

         1. Section 1983 Liability ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.