United States District Court, M.D. Georgia, Columbus Division
CORTNEY K. JACKSON, Plaintiff,
COLUMBUS CONSOLIDATED GOVERNMENT, et al., Defendants.
D. LAND CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE.
pending before the Court is the Motion to Dismiss filed by
Defendant Dr. Sai Nandamuru. For the reasons explained below,
Defendant Nandamuru's motion (ECF No. 24) shall be
GRANTED. Plaintiff's claims against
Defendant Nandamuru are therefore DISMISSED.
case arises from Plaintiff s pretrial detention in the
Muscogee County Jail ("MCJ"). Compl. 4, ECF No. 1.
According to the Complaint, Plaintiff was detained at the MCJ
beginning on or around February 2, 2016. Id. During
his detention, "Plaintiff suffered from a mental
illness, including suicidal ideations" and other
manifestations of mental illness. Id. Plaintiff
contends that during his detention, "[t]he Defendants
have repeatedly used excessive force against the Plaintiff
including beating, kicking, stomping, Tasing, and striking
the Plaintiff with their fists." Id. at 6.
Plaintiff details several instances of excessive force in his
Complaint, and he avers that at least one of these incidents
resulted in his hospitalization and injuries including a
pneumothorax, emphysema, a urethral stricture, subcutaneous
facial hematomas, and problems with subsequent liver and
hematology labs. Id. at 5-7. Plaintiff claims that
despite these serious medical conditions, he "was not
provided medical care to determine the reason for the
abnormal findings" and "also did not receive any
additional or follow-up medical treatment for his
injuries." Id. at 7. Plaintiff further alleges
that he was left without adequate clothing on several
occasions in the MCJ. Id.
additionally claims that he "never received a proper
mental assessment" and that the Defendants have
"failed to provide the Plaintiff with the mental health
care and services he needed." Compl. 6, ECF No. 1.
Plaintiff further contends that from June 26, 2016 until July
10, 2016, Plaintiff was given "Haldol and/or other
injections of sedatives despite not having been diagnosed
with a condition that required these medication[s]."
Id. at 7-8. Plaintiff alleges that he was not
prescribed these medications by any treating physician;
rather, MCJ employees "were excessively using the drug
Haldol or a similar drug to sedate the Plaintiff, instead of
providing him the appropriate mental health care he
names as Defendants in this case nine individuals who appear
to be corrections officers or sheriff's deputies; two
individuals who appear to be medical providers; and
"other Fictitious Defendants." See Compl.
1, ECF No. 1. In addition, Plaintiff sues the Columbus
Consolidated Government; the City of Columbus; the Muscogee
County Sheriff's Department; the Muscogee County Jail;
and the West Central Georgia Regional Hospital.Plaintiff raises
claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, contending that all
Defendants' deliberate indifference to his medical and
mental health needs and their use of excessive force violated
his constitutional rights. Id. at 8-12. Plaintiff
also asserts that Defendants Muscogee County Sheriff's
Department, Muscogee County Jail, the City of Columbus,
Columbus Consolidated Government, and Muscogee County are
liable under § 1983 for failing to train or supervise
their employees. Id. at 14-17. In addition,
Plaintiff raises state law claims for assault and battery and
the "tort of outrage." Id. at 12-14.
Nandamuru, a physician, has moved to dismiss the claims
against him. Mem. Supp. Def. Nandamuru's Mot. Dismiss 1-
2, 11, ECF No. 24-1. For the following reasons, Defendant
Nandamuru's motion must be granted.
Dismissal for Failure to State a Claim
Nandamuru asserts that Plaintiff's allegations against
him fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted,
and his claims must therefore be dismissed pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b) (6) . Mem. Supp. Def.
Nandamuru's Mot. Dismiss 11, ECF No. 24-1.
Standard of Review
survive a motion to dismiss" under Rule 12(b) (6),
"a complaint must contain 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, 570 (2007)). The complaint must
include sufficient factual allegations "to raise a right
to relief above the speculative level."
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. In other words, the
factual allegations must "raise a reasonable expectation
that discovery will reveal evidence of" the
plaintiff's claims. Id. at 556. But "Rule
12(b) (6) does not permit dismissal of a well-pleaded
complaint simply because it strikes a savvy judge that actual
proof of those facts is improbable.'" Watts v.
Fla. Int'l Univ., 495 F.3d 1289, 1295 (11th Cir.
2007) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556).
Individual Capacity Claims