United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Norfolk Division
OPINION AND ORDER
G. Doumar Judge
plaintiff, Eugene Dewitt Costine ("Plaintiff), filed
this Section 1983 action against the defendants, Correct Care
Solutions, LLC and Hampton Roads Regional Jail Authority,
seeking $10 million in damages stemming from the amputation
of his left foot in June 2017, which Plaintiff claims was
caused by the allegedly negligent medical care he received as
an inmate in Hampton Roads Regional Jail in Portsmouth,
Virginia, from 2016 to 2017. Defendant Hampton Roads Regional
Jail Authority moved to dismiss to the complaint on various
grounds. For the reasons stated herein, such motion is
GRANTED only as to Hampton Roads Regional
Jail Authority, which is hereby DISMISSED as
a defendant from this case.
January 29, 2019, Eugene D. Costine ("Plaintiff) filed
the instant action against defendants Correct Care Solutions,
LLC ("CCS") and Hampton Roads Regional Jail
Authority ("HRRJA") (collectively,
"Defendants") seeking $10 million in damages for
injuries sustained due to the allegedly inadequate medical
care Plaintiff received while incarcerated at Hampton Roads
Regional Jail. Complaint, ECF No. 1 (hereinafter
"Compl."). On March 1, 2019, defendant CCS filed
its answer to the complaint along with several affirmative
defenses. ECF No. 14. On March 20, 2019, defendant HRRJA
filed its answer to the complaint along with several
affirmative defenses. ECF No. 18.
March 20, 2019, HRRJA also filed the instant Motion to
Dismiss the complaint pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6)
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure along with a
supporting memorandum ("Mem."). ECF Nos. 16, 17.
The motion has been fully briefed. See Plaintiffs Response,
ECF No. 22, and HRRJA's Reply, ECF No. 23. On June 24,
2019, the Court conducted a hearing on same. HRRJA's
Motion to Dismiss is now before the Court.
12(b)(1) motion permits dismissal of a complaint for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1). Where, as
here, a defendant makes a facial rather than factual
challenge to subject matter jurisdiction, "the
plaintiff, in effect, is afforded the same procedural
protection as he would receive under a Rule 12(b)(6)
consideration." Kerns v. United States. 585
F.3d 187, 192 (4th Cir. 2009) (internal citations omitted).
Therefore, "the facts alleged in the complaint are taken
as true, and the motion must be denied if the complaint
alleges sufficient facts to invoke subject matter
12(b)(6) motion permits dismissal of a complaint where it
"fail[s] to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted." Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). A Rule 12(b)(6) motion
must be read in conjunction with Rule 8(a)(2), which requires
"a short and plain statement of the claim showing that
the pleader is entitled to relief," Fed.R.Civ.P.
8(a)(2), so as to "give the defendant fair notice of
what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it
rests." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
544, 550 (2007) (internal quotation omitted). To satisfy this
pleading standard, a complaint must contain sufficient
factual information to "state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face" and "raise a right to relief
above the speculative level" to survive a motion to
a Rule 12(b)(6) motion tests the sufficiency of a complaint
without resolving factual disputes, the court "must
accept as true all of the factual allegations contained in
the complaint" and "draw all reasonable inferences
in favor of the plaintiff." Kensington Volunteer
Fire Dep't v. Montgomery County, 684 F.3d 462, 467
(4th Cir. 2012) (internal quotations omitted). However, the
court is not bound by the "legal conclusions drawn from
the facts" and "need not accept as true unwarranted
inferences, unreasonable conclusions, or arguments."
E. Shore Mkts.. Inc. v. J.D. Assocs. Ltd.. 213 F.3d
175, 180 (4th Cir. 2000).
FACTS ALLEGED IN THE COMPLAINT
forth above, when deciding HRRJ's Motion to Dismiss, the
Court must assume the truth of all well-pleaded factual
allegations contained in Plaintiffs complaint. These
allegations are as follows.
about November 2014, Plaintiff, a resident of Newport News,
Virginia, underwent surgery on his left foot at the VCU
Medical Center in Richmond. Compl. ¶ 1. He was
subsequently placed under the care of Dr. Eugene Link of TPMG
in Newport News, who conducted home-care visits at Plaintiffs
home three times a week. Id. On or about October 2,
2016, Plaintiff was detained in the Newport News City Jail by
the Newport News Sheriffs Department. Id. ¶ 11
• At that time, Plaintiffs foot wound was still being
treated by Dr. Link, with the most recent date of such
treatment occurring on or about September 29, 2016.
Id. Plaintiff was held in Newport News City Jail for
approximately two weeks during which time he received
occasional wound treatment and bandage changes. Id.
about October 17, 2016, Plaintiff was transferred from
Newport News City Jail to Maryview Hospital where he
underwent surgery to clear out an infection in his left foot.
Id. ¶ 13. After approximately one week at the
hospital, he was transferred to Hampton Roads Regional Jail
("HRRJ") "where he was to continue receiving
intravenous antibiotics daily and external wound care."
Id. ¶ 14. At all relevant times, "Correct
Care Solutions, LLC [CCS] was responsible for providing
medical care to inmates housed at the [HRRJ] as an
independent medical provider or in the alternative acting as
agent, servant, or employee of Defendant [HRRJA]."
Id. ¶ 4.
being held at HRRJ, and while under the care of CCS,
Plaintiffs wounds were not cared for as directed in the
Plaintiffs discharge instructions from Maryview Hospital.
Id. ¶ 15. For example, Plaintiff was
"forced to endure long gaps in between bandage [changes]
causing his wounds to not heal as expected."
March 2017, CCS medical staff placed Plaintiffs foot in a
Unaboot. Id. ¶ 16. After this, Plaintiffs wound
care "continued to be sporadic and inadequate with
Plaintiff sometimes being deprived up to a week between wound
cleaning and re-bandaging." Id.
point between March 2017 and June 2017, Plaintiffs left foot
began to emit noxious odors and to seep fluid. Id.
¶ 17. Defendants were made aware of this condition,
after which time CCS instructed Plaintiff to do his "own
wound care" and provided Plaintiff bandages every two to
four days. Id. At some point between June 17 and 19,
2017, Plaintiff developed a fever. Id. ¶ 18.