Wallace v. Pierce County Sheriff's Department
3:19-cv-05329
W.D. Wash.May 16, 2019Background
- Plaintiff Wallace, a pretrial detainee, alleges inadequate and delayed treatment for a broken left leg while detained at Pierce County Jail in 2017, resulting in a non-union and need for corrective surgery and wheelchair use.
- He alleges Naphcare (the jail’s contracted medical provider) and the Pierce County Jail Sheriff’s Department were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs and failed to provide ADA accommodations (accessible cell/shower).
- Plaintiff claims delayed x-rays, inexperienced staff applying a cast/splint, incorrect medications, premature cast removal, a fall that worsened injury, lack of accommodations (upper bunk, non-ADA facilities), and improper transfer without records.
- Plaintiff sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (constitutional claims) and Title II of the ADA, seeking $1 billion in damages; he proceeded pro se and in forma pauperis.
- The court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, declined to serve it, and gave leave to amend by June 16, 2019, identifying deficiencies in pleading municipal/entity liability, naming proper defendants, and alleging necessary facts for ADA claims.
- The court denied motions to appoint counsel and for subpoenas without prejudice (noting discovery is premature and appointment of counsel not warranted absent exceptional circumstances).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Deliberate indifference § 1983 against Naphcare | Naphcare staff delayed/failed to provide adequate treatment for broken leg and gave wrong meds | Naphcare not alleged to have an unconstitutional policy/custom; respondeat superior insufficient | Dismissed as pleaded: no municipal/entity policy alleged; must name individual providers or show policy for entity liability |
| § 1983 against Pierce County Jail Sheriff’s Dept. (municipal liability) | Jail department failed to provide ADA accommodations and adequate medical care | Sheriff’s Dept. is not a suable legal entity; proper defendant is Pierce County and plaintiff hasn’t alleged policy/custom or named county | Dismissed as pleaded: plaintiff must name Pierce County and allege a custom/policy causing constitutional violation |
| ADA Title II claim | Denial of ADA-accessible cell/shower and accommodations because of disability | Naphcare is private/medical contractor and not a public entity under Title II; Sheriff’s Dept. not shown to have intentionally discriminated | Dismissed as pleaded: must name proper public-entity defendant and allege deliberate indifference/intentional discrimination |
| Motions: appointment of counsel and subpoena | Plaintiff: case complex; needs counsel and records from Naphcare | Court: no constitutional right to counsel; discovery/subpoena premature pre-service/answer | Motions denied without prejudice: counsel not warranted now; subpoena premature until discovery phase begins |
Key Cases Cited
- Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to serious medical needs)
- Hudson v. McMillan, 503 U.S. 1 (unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain standard)
- Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (municipal liability requires policy or custom)
- Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (pretrial detainee rights governed by Fourteenth Amendment)
- Duvall v. County of Kitsap, 260 F.3d 1124 (Ninth Circuit: deliberate indifference standard for Title II money damages)
- McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050 (two-part test for prison medical claims)
- Frost v. Agnos, 152 F.3d 1124 (pretrial detainee treatment standard comparable to Eighth Amendment)
- Clouthier v. County of Contra Costa, 591 F.3d 1232 (applying the same standards to pretrial detainees)
- Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051 (negligence/medical malpractice insufficient to show deliberate indifference)