Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Jackson v. Columbus Consolidated Government

United States District Court, M.D. Georgia, Columbus Division

October 30, 2018

CORTNEY K. JACKSON, Plaintiff,
v.
COLUMBUS CONSOLIDATED GOVERNMENT, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER

          CLAY D. LAND CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE.

         Presently 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.

         BACKGROUND

         This 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.

         Plaintiff 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 needed." Id.

         Plaintiff 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.[1]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.

         DISCUSSION

         Defendant 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.

         I. Dismissal for Failure to State a Claim

         Defendant 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.

         A. Standard of Review

         "To 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).

         B. Individual Capacity Claims

         i. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.