Barnes v. Correct Care Solutions

Background

Roland Barnes, representing himself and proceeding without prepayment of filing fees, sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He named Correct Care Solutions, LLC; Dr. Sorrel Feldman, who was incorrectly identified in the complaint as Dr. Philman; an unidentified nurse, referred to as Jane Doe; and other staff of the Orange County Jail Medical Department.

Barnes alleged that he was a parole detainee confined at the Orange County Jail in 2016 or 2017. He alleged that Dr. Feldman examined him and misdiagnosed him with an ear infection. He further alleged that Jane Doe placed a cotton swab in his right ear, scarring his eardrum and causing hearing loss. Barnes said he later complained to Dr. Feldman about pain and requested an magnetic resonance imaging scan, but Dr. Feldman did not order one. After leaving the jail, Barnes visited an ear doctor who recommended surgery for temporomandibular joint dysfunction. Barnes alleged that he underwent the surgery and was left with facial scars because Dr. Feldman and other jail medical staff failed to diagnose and treat his condition adequately.

Correct Care Solutions and Dr. Feldman moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim. Barnes did not oppose the motion, even after receiving additional time to do so. The court also addressed the claims against Jane Doe.

Deliberate-Indifference Claims

The court treated Barnes as a pretrial detainee for purposes of analyzing his claim under the Fourteenth Amendment, while noting that the complaint was unclear about whether his status was that of a pretrial detainee or convicted prisoner. A deliberate-indifference claim concerning medical care requires plausible allegations that the medical deprivation was sufficiently serious and that the defendant intentionally or recklessly failed to take reasonable steps to address the risk. Mere negligence or disagreement about the proper treatment or diagnostic method is not enough.

As to Dr. Feldman, the court held that Barnes did not adequately allege a failure to provide reasonable medical care. The complaint indicated that Dr. Feldman examined Barnes and diagnosed an ear infection, but it did not identify what condition Dr. Feldman failed to diagnose or what symptoms he failed to treat. The court also found no plausible allegation that Dr. Feldman had reason to know Barnes had temporomandibular joint dysfunction. Barnes’s disagreement with Dr. Feldman’s diagnosis and refusal to order an magnetic resonance imaging scan amounted, at most, to negligence or a disagreement about treatment, not deliberate indifference. The allegations concerning the cotton swab did not involve Dr. Feldman.

As to Jane Doe, the court held that Barnes did not plausibly allege that she consciously or recklessly disregarded a serious risk of harm when she placed the cotton swab in his ear. The court stated that even alleged negligence would not satisfy the required mental-state element of the constitutional claim. The court therefore concluded that Barnes failed to adequately plead a Fourteenth Amendment deliberate-indifference claim against either Dr. Feldman or Jane Doe.

Claim Against Correct Care Solutions

The court dismissed any claim against Correct Care Solutions under Monell v. Department of Social Services. Such a claim requires allegations that a policy or established practice caused the constitutional injury and a direct connection between that policy or practice and the alleged deprivation. Barnes’s complaint contained no allegations against Correct Care Solutions and did not adequately allege an underlying constitutional violation. The court also noted that liability under § 1983 cannot be based solely on an employer’s responsibility for its employees.

State-Law Claims and Amendment

After dismissing the federal claims, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, meaning authority to hear related state-law claims, over any state-law claims that could be inferred from the complaint.

The court denied leave to amend because it concluded that the problems with Barnes’s claims were substantive and that better pleading would not cure them. It concluded that Barnes would not be able to state a valid claim against any defendant if given an opportunity to amend.

Disposition

The motion to dismiss was granted. The court dismissed Barnes’s claims against all defendants, instructed the Clerk to close the case, and certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied Barnes permission to appeal without prepaying filing fees.