Howard v. Montgomery County
3:16-cv-00517
S.D. OhioMay 22, 2017Background
- Plaintiff James J. Howard sued Montgomery County, Sheriff Phil Plummer, and NaphCare alleging constitutional injuries arising from medical care at the Montgomery County Jail.
- Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint on March 20, 2017 naming Montgomery County and NaphCare; no John/Jane Doe defendants remain in the amended pleading.
- A Marshal Form 285 returned service as executed on “John Doe/Jane Doe (25)” at a county administration building; the court quashed those purported summonses because no Doe defendants are in the Amended Complaint.
- Defendants Montgomery County and Sheriff Plummer moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) arguing they cannot be held liable on a respondeat superior theory and that no county policy or custom is alleged.
- The docket showed NaphCare had not been served by the Rule 4(m) deadline, and the magistrate recommended dismissal of claims against NaphCare without prejudice for lack of service.
- The magistrate concluded the Amended Complaint fails to plead a Monell claim against the County or Sheriff and recommended dismissal without prejudice under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Doe summonses are effective | Service on named Does effectuated process | No Does are named in the Amended Complaint so service is improper | Summonses served on John/Jane Does are quashed |
| Whether NaphCare should be dismissed for lack of service | Implied opposition to dismissal; says evidence supports claims | NaphCare was not served by Rule 4(m) deadline | Recommend dismissal of NaphCare without prejudice for lack of service |
| Whether County/Sheriff can be liable under § 1983 via respondeat superior | County/Jail should be liable for employees' conduct | County/Sheriff argue Monell requires a policy, custom, or official decision causing violation | Dismiss Amended Complaint: no Monell policy/custom alleged; respondeat superior insufficient |
| Whether plaintiff states a § 1983 claim against County/Sheriff | Alleged injuries from medical care at jail support § 1983 claim | Claims are, at most, medical negligence by NaphCare employees and lack Monell allegations | Amended Complaint fails to state a § 1983 claim and should be dismissed without prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978) (municipal liability under § 1983 requires an official policy or custom)
- Board of County Comm’rs of Bryan County v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397 (1997) (causal link required between municipal policy and constitutional violation)
- Los Angeles County v. Humphries, 562 U.S. 29 (2010) (Monell policy/custom requirement applies regardless of relief sought)
- Powers v. Hamilton County Pub. Defender Comm’n, 501 F.3d 592 (6th Cir. 2007) (discussing municipal liability under § 1983)
- Fields v. Henry Cty., 701 F.3d 180 (6th Cir. 2012) (elements for establishing local government liability under § 1983)
- Bruederle v. Louisville Metro Gov’t, 687 F.3d 771 (6th Cir. 2012) (Monell analysis reaffirmed)
- Graham v. County of Washtenaw, 358 F.3d 377 (6th Cir. 2004) (requirement of direct causal link for municipal liability)
- Waters v. City of Morristown, 242 F.3d 353 (6th Cir. 2001) (discussing causal standards for Monell claims)