# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 4- 36 08

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Ru ss el l E. Jo ne s

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el la nt

v.

Fau lk ne r Co un ty; And y

Sh oc k, i n h is off

ic ia l an d i nd iv id ua l ca pa ci ti es ; J oh n Ran da ll , in hi s o ffi ci al an d i nd iv id ua l ca pa ci ti es ; Ll oyd Vin cen t, i n h is off ic ia l an d in di vi du al cap aci ti es ; J oh n Do es I - X

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an ts - App el le es

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Eas te rn Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s - Li tt le Ro ck

__ __ __ __ __ __ Su bm it te d: Ju ly 16, 2 01 5 Fil ed : J ul y

22 , 20 15 [Un pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re WOL LMAN, SMITH, an d B ENTON, Ci rcu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __
PER CURI AM.

In Octo be r 20 13 , Ru ss el l J o n e s b r ou gh t th e in st an t 42 U.S.C. § 19 83 su it cl ai m in g t ha t d efen da nt s wer e d el ib erat el y in di ffer en t to hi s se rio us m ed ic al ne ed s. He al so rai se d st at e-l aw cl ai m s of ba tt ery an d fal se im pr is on m en t. The di st ric t co ur tgr an te d su m m ary ju d gm en t fo r de fen da nt s an d de ni ed le av e to am en d, an d Jo ne s ap pe al s. Hav in g re vi ewed de no vo th e g ran t o f su m m ary jud gm en t, s ee M ur ch is on

v. Ro ge rs , 77 9 F.3 d 88 2, 88 6- 87 (8 th Ci r. 20 15 ), an d f o r ab us e of di sc ret io n th e de ni al of le av e to am en d, se e Mo un ta in Hom e Fl ig ht Serv ., In c. v. Bax te r Cn ty., Ark ., 75 8 F.3 d 10 38 , 1 04 5 (8 th Ci r. 20 14 ), we affi rm in pa rt, re ve rs e in pa rt, an d rem an d fo r fu rth er p ro ceed in gs

.

The co m pl ai nt al le ge d th e fo ll owi ng

. On Fri da y , Octo be r 12 , 20 12 , Jo ne s was

arre st ed an d de ta in ed in Fau lk ne r Co un ty J ai l (J ai l) fo r th ree da y s an d t hr ee ni gh ts

. Upo n hi s arri va l at th e Ja il , Jo ne s in fo rm ed de pu ti es th at he was ep il ep ti c an d th at it

was im pe rat iv e he ta ke m ed ic at io n twi ce da il y to pr ev en t se ve re se iz ur es ; he pr ov id ed th e na m e of hi s do ct or

. Des pi te Jo ne s ’s r e p e a te d req ue st s, “ de fen da nt s” refu se d to

co nt act hi s do ct or or ph arm acy an d wit hh el d Jo ne s’s m ed ic at io n. As a res ul t, Jo ne s

ex pe rie nc ed m

ul ti pl e se iz ur es du rin g hi s th ree- da y de te nt io n, in cl ud in g a co nv ul si ve

se iz ur e; no ne th el es s, “ of

fic ia ls ” di d no t pu rs ue em er ge nc y m ed ic al ca re an d co nti nued
t o w i th ho ld hi s m ed ic at io n. On Mo nd ay , Octo be r 15 , aft er Jo ne s m ad e a co ur t
ap pe aran ce o n t he ch arg es fo r whi ch he ha d b een arre st ed , a fri en d t ran sp or te d h im
to th e ho sp it al whe re ph y si ci an s co nf irmed th at Jo ne s ha d su ffer ed in juri es cau se d by
rep eat ed sei zu res th at co ul d h av e b een pre ve nt ed by tak in g h is m ed ic at io n.

Defen da nt s m ov ed fo r su m m ary jud gm en t, po in ti ng to Jo ne s’s de po si ti on te st im on y th at he ha d n ev er m et de fen da nt s Sh oc k, Ra nd al l, o r Vin cen t, an d t ha t to hi s kn owl ed ge th ey ha d no t acte d o r fai le d t o a ct reg ard in g h is care whi le he was at th e Ja il

. In Sep te m

be r 20 14 , Jo ne s m ov ed to am en d hi s co m pl ai nt , as se rti ng th at aft er di sc ov ery he ha d be en ab le to id en ti fy th e pe rs on s res po ns ib le fo r hi s in juri es --t he de fen da nt s who ha d be en li st ed as Jo hn Doe s in th e in it ia l co m pl ai nt --an d he wis he d
to se rv e th em wit h th e co m pl ai nt

. He at ta ch ed a pr op os e d a men d e d co m pl ai nt

c o n t ai ni ng th e sa m e al le ga ti on s bu t na m in g an ad di ti on al ei gh t Ja il em pl oyees , in cl ud in g o ffi cers res po ns ib le for ov ers eei ng th e care an d tre at m en t of in m at es , th e Ja il ph y si ci an , an d two nu rs es

. To th e pr op os ed am en de d co m pl ai nt , he at ta ch ed an

-2

-“ In m at e In ci de nt s Lis t” fro m Fau lk ne r Co un ty Sh eri ff’s Offi ce co nt ai ni ng st at em en ts

fro m si x Ja il of

fic ers --s om e of th e pr op os ed ne w de fen da nt s- -in di cat in g th at Jo ne s ha d be en in th ei r care du rin g th e rel ev an t ti m e, an d th at th ey ha d wit ne ss ed hi s

se iz ur es

.

The di st ric t co ur t gr an te d su m m ary jud gm en t fo r de fen da nt s, an d de ni ed le av e to am en d as un ti m el y an d fu ti le

. The co ur t di sm is se d th e se ct io n 19 83 cl ai m s wit h
pr ejud ic e, an d d ecl in ed su pp le m en ta l ju ris di ct io n o ve r th e st at e-l aw cl ai m s.

Upo n care fu l rev ie w, we co nc lu de th at Sh oc k, Ran da ll , an d Vin cen t were

en ti tl ed to su m

m ary jud gm en t in th ei r in di vi du al cap aci ti es , be cau se th e un di sp ut ed

ev id en ce sh ows th at th ey were no t pe rs on al ly in vo lv ed in th e al le ge d de pr iv at io n of Jo ne s’s ri gh ts , and we fin d n o e vi de nc e in di cat in g th ey were on no ti ce t ha t t rai ni ng pr oc ed ur es or su pe rv is io n was in ad eq ua te

. See Bea ul ie u v. Lud em an , 69 0 F.3 d 10 17 , 10 30 -3 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ) (fai lu re-t o- su pe rv is e cl ai m req ui res sh owi ng d el ib erat e in di ffer en ce or ta ci t a u t ho riz at io n of of fen si ve act s) ; Cl em on s v. Arm on tro ut , 47 7 F.3 d 96 2, 96 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 07 ) (li ab il it y u n d er § 19 83 req ui res cau sa l li nk to de pr iv at io n of rig ht s)

. The cl ai m s ag ai ns t Fau lk ne r Co un ty, an d ag ai ns t defe nd an ts in t h e i r of

fic ia l cap aci ti es , al so fai l be cau se no th in g in th e reco rd sh ows th at th ere

ex is te d a n o ffi ci al co un ty pol ic y , or a pa tt ern or p ract ic e, de m on st rat in g i na de qu at e tra in in g or su pe rv is io n. See Ken t u c ky v. Grah am , 47 3 U.S. 15 9, 16 5- 66 (1 98 5) (o ffi ci al -cap aci ty su it s are tre at ed as su it s ag ai ns t of fic ia l en ti ty); Mo ne ll v. Dep ’t of So c. Serv s., 43 6 U

. S

. 6 58 , 69 0- 91 (1 97 8) (co un ty is li ab le un de r § 19 83 on ly if al le ge d v io la ti on was c om m it te d p ur su an t t o o ffi ci al cu st om , po li cy , or p ract ic e).

Howev er, we co nc lu de th at th e d is tri ct co ur t ab us ed it s di sc ret io n in de nyin g le av e to am en d an d di sm is si ng th e Doe de fen da nt s. See Fed

. R. Ci v. P. 15 (a)( 2)

. The

co ur t di d no t fin d th at de fen da nt s wou ld be pr ejud ic ed by th e de la y be twee n th e fil in g of th e or ig in al co m

pl ai nt an d Jo ne s’s m ot io n to am en d, se e Bel l v. All st at e Life In s. Co ., 16 0 F.3 d 45 2, 45 4 (8 th Ci r. 19 98 ) (d el ay al on e is in su ffi ci e n t ju s t i fic at io n fo r

-3

-de nyin g le av e to a men d; pr ejud ic e to no nm ov an t m us t be sh own ), an d we can no t

c on cl ud e th at th e am en de d co m pl ai nt wou ld ha ve be en fu ti le , se e Mar m o v. Ty so n Fres h Mea ts , In c., 45 7 F.3 d 74 7, 75 5 (8 th Ci r. 20 06 ) ( d e n o vo rev ie w of di st ric t

co ur t’s co nc lu si on th at pr op os ed am en dm en t wou ld be fu ti le ). The al le ga ti on s in th e

am en de d co m

pl ai nt , ta ke n as tru e, de m on st rat e th at th e de fen da nt s who were on du ty
at th e Ja i l o n th e week en d of Octo be r 12 -1 5, 20 12 --wh o were id en ti fie d in th e p r o po se d am en de d co m

pl ai nt , a nd who se in vo lv em en t in th e al le ge d in ci de nt s w a s de ta il ed in a n at ta ch m en t to th e co m pl ai nt --were aware of Jo ne s’s ne ed fo r hi s

m ed ic at io n, an d wit ne ss ed hi s se iz ur es , y et in te nt io na ll y in te rfer ed wit h tre at m en t by wit hh o l d i n g t he m ed ic at io n an d refu si ng to pr ov id e em erg en cy m ed ic al care

. See F ed

. R. Ci v. P. 10 (c) (co py of writ te n in st ru m en t at ta ch ed as ex hi bi t to pl ead in g i s pa rt of pl ead in g fo r al l pu rp os e s ) ; Ash cro ft v. Iq ba l, 55 6 U.S. 66 2, 67 8 (2 00 9) (c o mp l a i n t ha s faci al pl au si bi li ty whe n pl ai nt iff pl ead s fact ua l co nt en t th at al lo ws

co ur t t o d r a w reas on ab le in fere nc e th at de fen da nt is li ab le fo r m is co nd uc t); Est el le

v. Gam bl e, 42 9 U.S. 97 , 10 4- 06 (1 97 6) (d el ib erat e in di ffer en ce m ay be de m on st rat ed by pr is on of

fic ia ls who i nt en ti on al ly de ny or de la y acce ss to m ed ic al care or in te nt io na ll y

in te rfer e wit h p res cri be d t reat m en t).

Acco rd in gl y , th e di sm is sa l of th e cl ai m s agai nst the D oe D ef en da nt s is rev ers ed

an d rem an de d fo r fu rth er pr oc eed in gs , in cl ud in g co ns id erat io n of an y pr op erl y pl ead ed st at e la w cl ai m s, se e 28 U.S.C. § 13 67 , an d aft er al lo win g Jo ne s to am en d hi s

co m pl ai nt as t o t ho se de fen da nt s. In all ot he r res pe ct s, t he jud gm en t i s af fir m ed

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

-4

-