Tapia v. NaphCare Inc
2:22-cv-01141
| W.D. Wash. | Jan 27, 2025Background
- Javier Tapia, while detained at Pierce County Jail, developed a severe medical condition (PCD), ultimately resulting in a lower leg amputation.
- Tapia alleges that Pierce County was negligent and violated his constitutional right to adequate medical care.
- He brings claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Monell liability for unconstitutional policies/customs) and for negligence/gross negligence against both Pierce County and its contract medical provider, NaphCare, Inc.
- Pierce County moved for summary judgment on all claims, arguing that there are no genuine disputes of material fact and that Tapia’s claims are legally insufficient.
- The court previously dismissed Tapia's ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims and his Monell claim based on failure to train; remaining are various negligence and § 1983 claims.
- The matter is before the court on Pierce County’s motion for summary judgment, which the court grants in part and denies in part.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Unconstitutional policies/customs under Monell (§1983) | Jail maintained policies/customs (e.g., substandard assessments, staff misclassifications) that led to constitutional deprivation | No pattern of similar cases; no evidence of customs; policies not unconstitutional | Material facts in dispute; summary judgment denied except daily monitoring policy |
| Correctional staff used for medical monitoring | Use of untrained staff for medical monitoring delayed/diminished care | No direct causal link between policy and injury | Material facts in dispute; summary judgment denied |
| Classification of non-response as refusal of care | Jail policy improperly treated unresponsive inmates as refusing care, delaying needed medical attention | No evidence Tapia was unable to communicate | Material facts in dispute; summary judgment denied |
| Failure to treat altered mental status as emergency | Jail failed to escalate sudden changes in mental status as emergencies, causing delayed care | Changes not consistent or policy-based | Material facts in dispute; summary judgment denied |
| Failure to ensure daily monitoring of mentally ill | Jail failed to follow care standards requiring daily checks for mentally ill inmates | Policy did not require daily checks; no deliberate indifference | Not enough for deliberate indifference; summary judgment granted to county |
| Negligence (Pierce County and NaphCare) | Substandard assessments, poor communication, inadequate monitoring, and failures in training caused injury | No breach of duty or causation | Material facts in dispute; summary judgment denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs. of City of New York, 436 U.S. 658 (municipal liability for policy or custom causing constitutional deprivation)
- West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42 (state actors liable for deprivation of constitutional rights under § 1983)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard; credibility determinations are for jury)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (burdens and standards for summary judgment)
- Sandoval v. Cnty. of San Diego, 985 F.3d 657 (analysis for Monell liability via policy of inaction)
- Gregoire v. City of Oak Harbor, 244 P.3d 924 (Washington jailers' nondelegable duty for inmate health)
- Hertog v. City of Seattle, 979 P.2d 400 (elements of negligence claim under Washington law)