United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 14-3608

___________________________

Russell E. Jones

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

Faulkner County; Andy Shock, in his official and individual capacities; John

Randall, in his official and individual capacities; Lloyd Vincent, in his official and

individual capacities; John Does I - X 

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Little Rock

____________

 Submitted: July 16, 2015

 Filed: July 22, 2015

[Unpublished]

____________

Before WOLLMAN, SMITH, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

In October 2013, Russell Jones brought the instant 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit

claiming that defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. 

He also raised state-law claims of battery and false imprisonment. The district court
granted summary judgment for defendants and denied leave to amend, and Jones

appeals. Having reviewed de novo the grant of summary judgment, see Murchison

v. Rogers, 779 F.3d 882, 886-87 (8th Cir. 2015), and for abuse of discretion the

denial of leave to amend, see Mountain Home Flight Serv., Inc. v. Baxter Cnty., Ark.,

758 F.3d 1038, 1045 (8th Cir. 2014), we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand

for further proceedings.

The complaint alleged the following. On Friday, October 12, 2012, Jones was

arrested and detained in Faulkner County Jail (Jail) for three days and three nights. 

Upon his arrival at the Jail, Jones informed deputies that he was epileptic and that it

wasimperative he take medication twice daily to prevent severe seizures; he provided

the name of his doctor. Despite Jones’s repeated requests, “defendants” refused to

contact his doctor or pharmacy and withheld Jones’s medication. As a result, Jones

experienced multiple seizures during his three-day detention, including a convulsive

seizure; nonetheless, “officials” did not pursue emergencymedical care and continued

to withhold his medication. On Monday, October 15, after Jones made a court

appearance on the charges for which he had been arrested, a friend transported him

to the hospital where physicians confirmed thatJones had suffered injuries caused by

repeated seizures that could have been prevented by taking his medication.

Defendants moved for summary judgment, pointing to Jones’s deposition

testimony that he had never met defendants Shock, Randall, or Vincent, and that to

his knowledge they had not acted or failed to act regarding his care while he was at

the Jail. In September 2014, Jones moved to amend his complaint, asserting that after

discovery he had been able to identify the persons responsible for his injuries--the

defendants who had been listed as John Does in the initial complaint--and he wished

to serve them with the complaint. He attached a proposed amended complaint

containing the same allegations but naming an additional eight Jail employees,

including officers responsible for overseeing the care and treatment of inmates, the

Jail physician, and two nurses. To the proposed amended complaint, he attached an

-2-
“Inmate Incidents List” fromFaulkner County Sheriff’s Office containing statements

from six Jail officers--some of the proposed new defendants--indicating that Jones

had been in their care during the relevant time, and that they had witnessed his

seizures.

The district court granted summary judgment for defendants, and denied leave

to amend as untimely and futile. The court dismissed the section 1983 claims with

prejudice, and declined supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims.

Upon careful review, we conclude that Shock, Randall, and Vincent were

entitled to summary judgment in their individual capacities, because the undisputed

evidence shows that they were not personally involved in the alleged deprivation of

Jones’s rights, and we find no evidence indicating they were on notice that training

procedures orsupervision wasinadequate. See Beaulieu v. Ludeman, 690 F.3d 1017,

1030-31 (8th Cir. 2012) (failure-to-supervise claim requires showing deliberate

indifference or tacit authorization of offensive acts); Clemons v. Armontrout, 477

F.3d 962, 967 (8th Cir. 2007) (liability under § 1983 requires causal link to

deprivation of rights). The claims against Faulkner County, and against defendants

in their official capacities, also fail because nothing in the record shows that there

existed an official county policy, or a pattern or practice, demonstrating inadequate

training or supervision. See Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 165-66 (1985)

(official-capacity suits are treated as suits against official entity); Monell v. Dep’t of

Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 690-91 (1978) (county is liable under § 1983 only if

alleged violation was committed pursuant to official custom, policy, or practice).

However, we conclude that the district court abused its discretion in denying

leave to amend and dismissing the Doe defendants. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). The

court did not find that defendants would be prejudiced by the delay between the filing

of the original complaint and Jones’s motion to amend, see Bell v. Allstate Life Ins.

Co., 160 F.3d 452, 454 (8th Cir. 1998) (delay alone is insufficient justification for

-3-
denying leave to amend; prejudice to nonmovant must be shown), and we cannot

conclude that the amended complaint would have been futile, see Marmo v. Tyson

Fresh Meats, Inc., 457 F.3d 747, 755 (8th Cir. 2006) (de novo review of district

court’s conclusion that proposed amendment would be futile). The allegations in the

amended complaint, taken astrue, demonstrate that the defendants who were on duty

at the Jail on the weekend of October 12-15, 2012--who were identified in the

proposed amended complaint, and whose involvement in the alleged incidents was

detailed in an attachment to the complaint--were aware of Jones’s need for his

medication, and witnessed his seizures, yet intentionally interfered with treatment by

withholding the medication and refusing to provide emergency medical care. See

Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(c) (copy of written instrument attached as exhibit to pleading is

part of pleading for all purposes); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)

(complaint has facial plausibility when plaintiff pleads factual content that allows

court to draw reasonable inference that defendant is liable for misconduct); Estelle

v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104-06 (1976) (deliberate indifference may be demonstrated

by prison officials who intentionally deny or delay access to medical care or

intentionally interfere with prescribed treatment).

Accordingly, the dismissal ofthe claims againsttheDoeDefendants isreversed

and remanded for further proceedings, including consideration of any properly

pleaded state law claims, see 28 U.S.C. § 1367, and after allowing Jones to amend his

complaint as to those defendants. In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed.

_____________________________

-4-