Bradley v. City of Solon, 1:19-cv-00161

Background

On Nov. 3–4, 2018, Joshua Bradley was involved in an altercation with East Cleveland PD (ECPD), was tasered and restrained, and showed visible injuries when turned over to Highland Heights PD (HHPD).
HHPD transported Bradley to a hospital (UH), where he was diagnosed and prescribed pain medication; HHPD then transferred him to the City of Solon jail the morning of Nov. 4.
At Solon jail Bradley repeatedly requested emergency care and his prescribed medication; Officer Nicole Tancredi delayed providing the prescription until about 1:00 p.m. and denied a return ER visit, offering ibuprofen earlier instead.
Bradley, proceeding pro se, sued the City of Solon and Officer Tancredi under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (due process/deliberate indifference and Eighth Amendment), Ohio Rev. Code § 2307.60(A)(1) (civil liability for criminal acts), and state torts (IIED, NIED).
Defendants moved to dismiss; the court reviewed the pleadings and exhibits (including HHPD reports noting ECPD used force and did not file charges or arrange treatment).
The court granted the motion to dismiss in full, struck Bradley’s unauthorized sur-reply, and denied his case-management request as moot, noting Bradley may wish to consult counsel given questions about ECPD’s conduct.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
§1983 – Fourteenth Amendment deliberate indifference against Tancredi	Tancredi delayed/denied necessary medical care after hospital discharge	Delay was not constitutionally actionable; Bradley had been examined and prescribed treatment earlier	Dismissed — plaintiff failed to plead a sufficiently serious untreated medical need or harm from delay
§1983 – Municipality liability (Monell) against City of Solon	City failed to train/supervise causing constitutional violation	No underlying constitutional violation alleged, so no municipal liability	Dismissed — threshold element (constitutional violation) not adequately pleaded
§1983 – Eighth Amendment claim	Tancredi violated Eighth Amendment protections	Eighth Amendment does not apply to pretrial detainees; claim duplicative of Fourteenth Amendment theory	Dismissed — Eighth Amendment inapplicable to pretrial detainee
O.R.C. §2307.60(A)(1) civil liability for criminal acts	Tancredi committed criminal interference with civil rights (Ohio Rev. Code §2921.45) so civil liability follows	§2307.60 may require a criminal conviction; regardless, plaintiff failed to plead the underlying civil-rights violation	Dismissed — court declined to reach conviction issue because underlying civil-rights claim insufficient
State torts (IIED, NIED) against Tancredi	Emotional and physical distress from denial/delay of care	Tancredi is a political-subdivision employee immune under Ohio Rev. Code Ch. 2744	Dismissed — statutory immunity applies; plaintiff did not plead any exception
Motion to strike plaintiff’s sur-reply	N/A (plaintiff filed sur-reply without leave)	Sur-reply improper and added no new arguments	Granted — sur-reply struck for lack of leave and no new issues

Key Cases Cited

Handy-Clay v. City of Memphis, 695 F.3d 531 (6th Cir. 2012) (motion-to-dismiss facts must be taken as true)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (Sup. Ct.) (plausibility standard for complaints)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (Sup. Ct.) (legal conclusions insufficient to survive dismissal)
Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (Sup. Ct.) (Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to serious medical needs)
Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (Sup. Ct.) (pretrial detainees protected by Due Process Clause)
Blackmore v. Kalamazoo Cnty., 390 F.3d 890 (6th Cir.) (elements of deliberate indifference claim for pretrial detainees)
Santiago v. Ringle, 734 F.3d 585 (6th Cir.) (delay alone insufficient for deliberate indifference without harm)
Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (Sup. Ct.) (municipal liability requires policy or custom causing constitutional violation)
Powers v. Hamilton Cty. Pub. Def. Comm’n, 501 F.3d 592 (6th Cir.) (Monell pleading standards)
Harrison v. Ash, 539 F.3d 510 (6th Cir.) (definition of a "sufficiently serious" medical need)