United States District Court, E.D. Kentucky, Central Division, Lexington
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
C. REEVES, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter is pending for consideration of Defendant Correct Care
Solution's (“Correct Care”) motion to
dismiss, filed October 12, 2017. [Record No.
32][1" name="FN1" id="FN1">1]
For the reasons that follow, the defendant's motion will
be granted and this action will be dismissed.
times relevant to this action, Dennis Brock was being held as
an inmate at Kentucky's Northpoint Training Center. He
alleges that, on or about October 7, 2016, his appendix
ruptured. Two days later, he claims to have approached staff
at Northpoint but staff refused to send him outside the
facility for treatment. He states that he returned on October
10, 2016, still complaining of severe pain. Again, however,
Brock alleges that he did not receive adequate or proper care
from the nursing staff. On October 11, 2016, Brock was taken
to Ephraim McDowell Regional Medical Center where surgery was
performed and his appendix was removed. Brock's cause of
action is based on the five-day delay (October 7, 2016 to
October 11, 2016) during which he claims to have received
negligent care and treatment from medical personnel at
Northpoint Training Center. His original Complaint contains
counts identified as “Deliberate Indifference”
and “Malice”. [Record No. 1] In addition, Brock
attached medical records documenting his medical treatment
from Ephraim McDowell. The attached records indicate that
Brock was actually taken to the regional hospital on October
10, 2016, rather than October 11, 2016.
filed additional documents which were deemed to be an Amended
Complaint on July 18, 2017. [Record No. 25] Through this
pleading, the plaintiff includes Correct Care Solutions as
the only named defendant. At pages 2-3 of that document, he
repeats and expands upon the claims contained in his original
Complaint regarding inadequate care by medical personnel at
Northpoint Training Center during the period October 7, 2016,
through October 10, 2016. And while Brock again attached
medical records and grievance forms to this document, he does
not explain any additional reason for seeking damages against
evaluating a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), the court
must determine whether the complaint alleges
“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, 555 (2007)). The plausibility standard is met
“when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows
the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant
is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id.
(quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). While a
complaint need not contain detailed factual allegations, a
plaintiff must provide more than mere labels and conclusions,
and “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause
of action will not do.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at
555. While plaintiffs are not required to plead facts showing
that the defendant is likely to be responsible for the harm
alleged, plaintiffs must demonstrate “more than a sheer
possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.”
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.
to Correct Care, it should be dismissed from this action
because Plaintiff Brock's Amended Complaint fails to
state a claim against it upon which relief may be granted.
More specifically, Correct Care contends that it cannot be
held liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for torts committed
by its employees based on a theory of respondeat superior.
Board of the County Comm'rs v. Brown, 520 U.S.
397, 403 (1997) (section 1983 liability may not be imposed
upon a municipality or local governmental entity under a The
Health Care Grievance Committee notes at page 29 of the
records provided by Brock that, “per review of your
medical record [, ] you refused a medical assessment by the
provider on October 9, 2016.” [Id. at pp. 29,
35] The records attached reflect additional grievances
relating to medical treatment following the incident which is
the focus of this litigation.
of respondeat superior); Austin v. Paramount Parks,
Inc., 195 F.3d 715');">195 F.3d 715, 728 (4th Cir. 1999) (Monell v.
Department of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978), and its
progeny apply equally to private corporations). Instead,
liability may only be predicated when an official policy,
practice or custom of the corporate entity causes the alleged
deprivation of federal rights. See Street v. Corr. Corp.
of Am., 102 F.3d 810');">102 F.3d 810, 818 (6th Cir. 1996) (holding that
liability of a private corporation may be liable under §
1983 only when an official policy or custom of the
corporation cause the alleged deprivation of federal rights).
[Record No. 32-1, p. 2]
to demonstrate liability against it, Plaintiff Brock must:
(1) identify the offending policy, practice or custom; (2)
connect it to the defendant; and (3) demonstrate that the
particular injury in issue was incurred due to the execution
of that policy, practice or custom. See Ilkire v.
Irving, 330 F.3d 802, 815 (6th Cir. 2003). As the Sixth
Circuit explained in Ilkire, “despite being
‘persons' for the purposes of § 1983,
municipalities [and private corporations performing public
functions] are not ‘liable for every misdeed of their
employees and agents.  Instead, it is when execution of a
government's policy or custom, whether made by its
lawmakers or those whose edicts or acts may fairly be said to
represent official policy, inflicts the injury that the
government [or private corporation] as an entity is
responsible under § 1983.” Id. at 814-815
(citations omitted). Here, Plaintiff Brock has not alleged
that Correct Care's medical staff acted pursuant to a
policy, practice or custom that caused the alleged harm.
asserts in his response that he has already submitted proof
of his claim by way of medical records and a medical-DVD. He
further claims that the alleged negligence (i.e.,
the actions or inactions) of the medical staff at Northpoint
Training Center put him in harm's way. [Record No. 34]
Thus, he fails to address the central point raised in the
defendant's motion: the failure to allege that a custom,
practice or policy of Correct Care is connected to his
alleged injury. As a result, has failed to properly allege or
establish a claim which may be asserted against the remaining
reasons outlined above, it is hereby ORDERED
1. Defendant Correct Care Solution's motion to dismiss
the plaintiffs Amended Complaint [Record No. 32] ...