United States District Court, M.D. Georgia, Columbus Division
STEPHEN HYLES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
pending before the Court is Defendant's motion to dismiss
Plaintiff's complaint (ECF No. 18) and Plaintiff's
motions seeking leave to amend (ECF No. 21), recusal (ECF No.
26), a hearing (ECF No. 30), and court compelled action (ECF
No. 31). For the reasons explained below, Defendant's
motion to dismiss and Plaintiff's motion to amend are
granted. Plaintiff's renewed motion for recusal is denied
and his motions for a hearing and court compelled action are
denied as moot.
to Plaintiff's original complaint (ECF No. 1), on
November 12, 2013, at approximately 12:44 a.m., Plaintiff
“presented himself” to the emergency room at
Midtown Medical Center (“MMC”). Compl. 7, ECF No.
1. There, he “requested an appropriate medical
screening examination and treatment for his suicidal
ideations, depression, post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD)
and hallucinations.” Id. Plaintiff was triaged
by Jamila Harris, a registered nurse, at roughly 1:06 a.m.
Id. at 10. Harris conducted a physical assessment of
Plaintiff and classified him “as a category two (2)
patient, and dressed him out in hospital gowns and obtained
an initial urine sample.” Id. Harris
“did not accept [P]laintiff's initial urine sample
and so at [approximately 1:25 a.m.] [P]laintiff request[ed]
to be discharged.” Id. However, instead of
discharging Plaintiff, Harris and Dr. Thomas Demaro, an
emergency room physician, “ordered MMC security guards
to detain [P]laintiff against his will and subjected him to
false imprisonment and battery.” Id.
was “placed on suicidal observation precautions”
at approximately 1:45 a.m., and observed by nurses. Compl.
13. Plaintiff also contends that Dr. Demaro “ordered
Plaintiff to be chemically restrained with the psychotropic
drugs Haldol and Activan [sic]” in violation of MMC
policy. Id. at 12. Plaintiff alleges he “was
pressured and threatened[, ]” by Nurse Harris and an
MMC security guard, “to provide a second urine sample
by means of a catheter” at approximately 3:45 a.m.
Id. at 14. Plaintiff attempted to decline the
procedure by stating it would be “too painful”
and “renewed his request to be discharged.”
Id. Despite this request, at approximately 4:15
a.m., Dr. Demaro and Nurse Harris ordered hospital security
guards “to restrain [P]laintiff in order to obtain a
second urine sample from him.” Id. Nurse
Harris allegedly “maliciously and forcefully inserted a
catheter into [P]laintiff's penis and extracted a urine
sample while he was being restrained” and Plaintiff
“urinated blood” and “was sore for three
days after the catheter.” Id. Plaintiff also
contends a security guard choked him “and used pressure
points techniques” to get him to submit to the catheter
and that another guard twisted his left arm “causing
extreme pain” while attempting to restrain Plaintiff
during the catheterization. Id.
admits that, while he was being restrained, he threatened to
“kick [a MMC guard's] ass for choking [Plaintiff]
and for using pressure points to get him to submit to the
catheter.” Compl. 15. As a result of these
threats, Plaintiff was “arrested on criminal charges,
terroristic threats and disorderly conduct” at
approximately 4:23 a.m.-eight minutes after the forced
catheterization procedure. Id. At 4:29 a.m., Dr.
Demaro “medically cleared Plaintiff to be transferred
to Muscogee County Jail, without admitting him as an
inpatient” and “without providing [Plaintiff]
with a psychiatric evaluation or treatment.”
Id. Plaintiff contends that his “emergency
medical condition deteriorated when he was transferred to the
county jail” and that he “became emotionally
traumatized and experienced prolonged suicidal ideations for
six (6) months, suffered serious cognitive impairment and
incontinence, has been under mental health care for the past
three years, and he has developed a distrust for medical
practicioners [sic] touching or examining him[.]”
Id. Plaintiff also contends that he has suffered
“lapse in memory” and his “chronic rage
flares up” as a result of Defendants' conduct.
original complaint, Plaintiff raises claims under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 against numerous Defendants, alleging they have
violated various constitutional rights. See Compl.
16-18, 20. He also argues that MMC and multiple other
Defendants should be liable under the Emergency Medical
Treatment and Active Labor Act (“EMTALA”), 42
U.S.C. § 1395dd, . See Compl. 16. Plaintiff
also appears to raise state law claims for battery, fraud,
false imprisonment, and intentional infliction of emotional
distress. See Compl. 19-21. Finally, he seeks a
declaratory judgment, compensatory and punitive damages, and
other fees, penalties, and fines as relief for these alleged
violations. Compl. 21-22.
claims are familiar to the Court because he raised them in a
previous action based on the same alleged November 12, 2013,
events. See Mahone v. Midtown Medical Center, No.
4:15-cv-00180-CDL-MSH (M.D. Ga. Nov. 9, 2015)
(“Mahone I”). In Mahone I,
Plaintiff also raised § 1983 and EMTALA claims against
many of the same Defendants he initially brought claims
against in this case, including Defendants MMC, Nichols,
Foster, and Kaiser. Plaintiff also attempted to raise these
federal claims against numerous John and Jane Doe security
guards and nurses, including Dr. Demaro and Nurse Harris.
See Mahone I, ECF No. 59, (Aug. 24, 2017) (Order
& R. & R. denying motion to amend to add parties). In
addition, Plaintiff alleged state law claims against
Defendants Nichols, Foster, Kaiser, MMC, and numerous Doe
Defendants for battery, false imprisonment, and intentional
infliction of emotional distress. See Mahone I, ECF
No. 16, (Feb. 26, 2016) (Suppl. Compl.).
initial screening of his claims in Mahone I,
Plaintiff's individual capacity § 1983 claims
against Defendants Nichols, Foster, and Kaiser, and his state
law claims against MMC, were permitted to proceed for further
factual development. See Mahone I, ECF No. 18, (May
20, 2016) (R. & R.). But, Plaintiff's other claims
were dismissed, without prejudice, over Plaintiff's
objections. Mahone I, ECF No. 25, (June 22, 2016),
(Order adopting R. & R.). The defendants who remained in
Mahone I moved for summary judgment on October 7,
2016. Plaintiff responded to that motion by filing his own
motion for summary judgment in which he also requested that
the Court consolidate this case- which he initiated on May 9,
2017 (ECF No. 1)-with Mahone I. See Attach.
1 to Pl.'s Mot. Summ. J., ECF No. 53-1 in Mahone
I. On August 24, 2017, the undersigned recommended that
Plaintiff's claims against the only remaining individual
Defendants in Mahone I be dismissed on grounds that
they were not state actors and Plaintiff therefore could not
maintain his § 1983 claims against them. The undersigned
further recommended that the Court decline to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state law
claims and denied Plaintiff's motions to amend and his
motion to consolidate. See Mahone I, ECF No. 59,
(Aug. 24, 2017) (Order & R. & R.). Judgment was
entered dismissing Plaintiff's remaining claims in
Mahone I, on September 27, 2017. Mahone I,
ECF No. 64, (Sept. 27, 2017) (J.).
initiated this suit on May 22, 2017 (ECF No. 1). The Court
conducted a preliminary screening and, on December 22, 2017,
allowed Plaintiff's EMTALA claims against Defendant MMC
to proceed but dismissed all of his § 1983 claims and
his state law claims against all non-MMC defendants. Order
23, ECF No. 10. Defendant moved to dismiss Plaintiff's
EMTALA claims on March 5, 2018, arguing they are barred by
the applicable statute of limitations. Mot. to Dismiss 1, ECF
No. 18. Plaintiff was notified of Defendant's motion to
dismiss the same day. Notification of Mot. to Dismiss, ECF
No.19. On March 29, 2018, Plaintiff, in two separate
submissions, responded to Defendant's motion and also
moved to amend his complaint (ECF Nos. 20, ...