Opinion ID: 2974949
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Dismissal of Defendant John Does #1 and #2

Text: Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) provides in pertinent part as follows: If service . . . is not made upon a defendant within 120 days after the filing of the complaint, the court . . . shall dismiss the action without prejudice as to that defendant or direct that service be effected within a specified time; provided that if the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the court shall extend the time for service for an appropriate period. Petty filed his complaint on April 1, 2004. He has yet to identify John Does #1 and #2, and thus has yet to serve them, clearly in violation of the 120-day window provided by Rule 4(m). Furthermore, the district court ruled on this particular 12(b)(6) motion only after the close of discovery—that is, Petty was given ample time to figure out who John Does #1 and #2 might be. The thrust of Petty’s argument, however, seems to be that John Does #1 and #2 should not have been dismissed because even if not personally (actually) served, they were on constructive notice of the lawsuit. In other words, because Sheriff Karnes and Franklin County were properly served, the two John Doe deputies—who served at the direction of the Sheriff and the County and whose behavior allegedly No. 06-3552 Petty v. County of Franklin, Ohio, et al. Page 5 gave rise to some of Petty’s § 1983 claims—should have been on notice that they were being sued as well. What Petty fails to grasp, however, is that his constructive-notice argument makes sense only if, at some point, he actually substitutes the names of real persons for his John Doe defendants.2 To be sure, the John Does #1 and #2 in this case could reasonably have been expected to know of Petty’s suit, assuming of course both remain in Franklin County’s employ. But that is not enough to make them parties to the lawsuit without their being specifically named. See, e.g., Doe v. Sullivan County, 956 F.2d 545, 552 (6th Cir. 1992) (“Although as jailers the three defendants reasonably could be expected to have known of the instant suit, this alone is insufficient to impute to them knowledge of their future status as defendants. Many jailers and employees who were not named as defendants were aware of and even deposed in this case.”). It should not have been difficult to obtain the name of John Doe #1, the individual Petty alleges was “on duty and assigned to the area of the jail where [he] was attacked and failed to intervene or otherwise protect [him] during the attack . . . .” Compl. at ¶ 17. Nor should it have been difficult to identify John Doe #2, who Petty alleges gave him only solid foods upon his return from the hospital, despite his request (and the doctor’s orders) for a soft diet. Compl. at ¶ 20. Nor is there a scintilla of evidence in the record that Franklin County in any way impeded Petty’s efforts to discover the identities of John Does #1 and #2. In fact, nowhere in his appellate brief does Petty offer a rational explanation—or any explanation at all, for that matter—for why the identities of John Does #1 and #2 still elude him even after discovery. The district court was therefore correct in dismissing John Does #1 and #2 from the lawsuit, and this dismissal—involving the two county officials most directly 3implicated in Petty’s civil rights claims—significantly undermines the remainder of Petty’s claims. 2 Had this been the case, then Petty’s constructive notice argument might have turned into one that has been frequently brought by civil rights plaintiffs. See generally Howard M. Wasserman, Civil Rights Plaintiffs and John Doe Defendants: A Study in Section 1983 Procedure, 25 CARDOZO L. REV. 793 (2003). The typical scenario involves a plaintiff who names John Doe defendants in his initial complaint and then, at some later point (usually when discovery reveals the true names of the John Does), seeks to amend the complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15. Often the plaintiff’s motion to amend is denied because the applicable statute of limitations has run. The plaintiff then seeks to circumvent the limitations problem based on constructive notice, by invoking the “relation back” provision of Rule 15(c), which applies when a defendant “knew or should have known that, but for a mistake concerning the identity of the proper party, the action would have been brought against the [defendant].” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(c)(3)(B) (emphasis added); see also Friedmann v. Campbell, No. 98-6728, 1999 WL 1045281 (6th Cir. Nov. 8, 1999) (unpublished). Because Petty has made no motion to amend his complaint in which he substitutes real names for his John Doe defendants, this more “typical” John Doe scenario is not before us, and we decline to speculate how it might be resolved in this case. Here, Petty is up against a fundamental service-of-process problem, not a technical relation-back problem involving Rule 15(c). 3 Petty maintains that because a dismissal on Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) grounds is without prejudice, he should not have been subject to a 12(b)(6) dismissal, which is generally construed as a dismissal with prejudice on the merits. Appellant’s Br. at 13-14, 20-21. This argument, while technically correct, is of little practical relevance given the fact that even if Petty were permitted to re-file his claim today, he would be barred by the applicable statute of limitations. See 3 Moore’s Federal Practice § 4.82[3] (“[A]ny dismissal ordered [under Rule 4(m)] after expiration of the statute of limitations for failure to establish good cause will be, in effect, with prejudice since plaintiff will be precluded from commencing a new action.”) (citing various circuit court decisions). Petty’s claim arose in April 2002, and the applicable statute of limitations in this case, Ohio Rev. Code § 2305.10, is two years. Thus, even if the Rule 4(m) dismissal was without prejudice, a new claim filed today against the prison guards (as opposed to an amended claim relying on Rule 15(c), see n.2 of this opinion) would clearly be time-barred. See also Appellee’s Br. at 9-11. No. 06-3552 Petty v. County of Franklin, Ohio, et al. Page 6 B. Dismissal of Defendants Franklin County and Franklin County Sheriff’s Office The district court dismissed the Franklin County Sheriff’s Office as a party because under Ohio law, a county sheriff’s office is not a legal entity capable of being sued for purposes of § 1983. See Barrett, 107 F. Supp. 2d at 954-55. In his appellate brief, Petty cites only one case to refute this authority, United Food & Commercial Workers Local 1099 v. City of Sidney, 364 F.3d 738 (6th Cir. 2004). But United Food is totally inapposite, because it did not involve an Ohio county sheriff’s office as a named defendant. Rather, it involved a county sheriff as named defendant. Unlike a county sheriff’s office, the sheriff himself may be considered a proper legal entity for purposes of suit under § 1983. In fact, that is exactly what the district court did in allowing Petty’s suit against Sheriff Karnes to proceed at least to the summary judgment stage. There is no merit, therefore, to Petty’s argument that the Franklin County Sheriff’s Office be implicated as a separate legal entity in this suit. See also Batchik v. Summit County Sheriff’s Dep’t, No. 13783, 1989 WL 26084, at  (Ohio Ct. App. Mar. 15, 1989) (unreported) (noting that the Summit County Sheriff, but not the Summit County Sheriff's Department, was an entity capable of being sued). We also affirm the district court’s dismissal of defendant Franklin County, but on alternate grounds. Under Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978), county liability is limited to situations in which the deprivation of constitutional rights results from an official policy or custom of the county. The mandate of Monell and its progeny requires (1) that a municipality be held liable only “when execution of a government’s policy or custom, whether made by its lawmakers or by those whose edicts or acts may fairly be said to represent official policy, inflicts the injury,” Monell, 436 U.S. at 694, and (2) that there be an “affirmative link between the policy and the particular constitutional violation alleged,” Oklahoma City v. Tuttle, 471 U.S. 808, 823 (1985). See Bennett, 410 F.3d at 818-19 (6th Cir. 2005). The initial question, then, is whether or not Petty’s complaint properly states a claim for municipal liability under Monell and Tuttle. The third claim in Petty’s complaint, labeled as “Municipal Liability,” states in full as follows: 38. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference thereto the preceding thirty-seven (37) paragraphs as if fully rewritten herein. 39. Said acts by the individual Defendants County, Franklin County Sheriff’s Department, Jim Karnes, John Doe #1 and John Doe #2, were proximately caused by certain customs and policies of Defendants County, Franklin County Sheriff’s Department and Karnes, including but not limited to, a failure to adequately and reasonably train, supervise and discipline officers in such a way to properly protect the constitutional rights of citizens; and a specific set of policies established during the days of the incidents described above, which had the effect of permitting, encouraging, approving and ratifying violations of the constitutional rights of citizens, including Plaintiff, as described above. 40. Defendants actions and conduct were the actual and proximate cause of injury, damages and losses sustained by Plaintiff. (Emphasis added.) The district court held that this complaint did not meet the 12(b)(6) bar, because it “identifies no official custom or policy of Franklin County with regard to his constitutional claim,” and because it “fails to come forward with any facts to demonstrate how, even if there were a custom or policy of the county, [Petty’s] injuries are causally linked to the County’s alleged failure to train and/or supervise.” D. Ct. Op. at 7. No. 06-3552 Petty v. County of Franklin, Ohio, et al. Page 7 We are not convinced that the district court was correct in dismissing Petty’s municipalliability claim at the 12(b)(6) stage. A “district court’s dismissal of a civil rights complaint on a 12(b)(6) motion is scrutinized with special care.” Gazette, 41 F.3d at 1064. In this case, the district court itself recognized that it is not authorized to grant a motion to dismiss under 12(b)(6) unless it is “clear that no relief could be granted under any set of facts that could be proved consistent with the allegations.” D. Ct. Op. at 5 (quoting Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984)). Given the allegations that Petty makes in his complaint, it is not immediately clear what more Petty could have alleged with respect to the policies that Franklin County might or might not have. We wonder how Petty would necessarily know, at the point of his complaint, and without the benefit of discovery, whether such a custom or policy might exist, and if it does exist, what its contours might be or how exactly it effected a violation of his constitutional rights. At this stage in the proceeding, however, Petty’s case does not hinge on his ability to plead municipal liability in proper fashion because, in any event, Petty is unable to survive summary judgment with respect to his claims against the County. The district court properly granted summary judgment on Petty’s analogous claims against Sheriff Karnes in his official capacity, as discussed in the ensuing section. Because those claims, in this case, involve the same showing as the claims against the County, the County claims must also fail. See Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 166 (1985) (“[A]n official-capacity suit is, in all respects other than name, to be treated as a suit against the entity.”). C. Summary Judgment in Favor of Sheriff Karnes After the district court dismissed Franklin County, the Franklin County Sheriff’s Office, and John Does #1 and #2 on the pleadings, the only remaining municipal defendant at the summary judgment stage was Sheriff James Karnes. Petty has put forward no evidence that Sheriff Karnes was present during any of the alleged incidents giving rise to his claims—namely, his being placed in a cell with violent inmates, his being denied a soft diet after the injury, and his being denied medical attention or transport to the hospital on Thursday, April 11, and Friday, April 12. Nor has Petty presented evidence that Karnes was directly involved in oversight of Petty’s treatment. Certainly other county supervisory officials had some awareness of Petty’s situation. For example, the record includes an affidavit from Chief Deputy Sheriff Mark Barrett, who reviewed Petty’s paperwork with respect to his dietary order, which specified that he be given a “liquid diet.” The record also includes an affidavit from Major Michael Herrell, who was the Facility Commander at the Franklin County Sheriff’s Office and the person in charge of the Franklin County Correctional Institute. According to his affidavit, Herrell fielded several complaints from members of Petty’s family in which they claimed he was not receiving proper medical attention and was not receiving his prescribed liquid diet. Herrell’s actions were also recorded in an inter-office memo sent to Barrett on April 12, 2002. Yet neither in Petty’s complaint, nor in his affidavit attached to his reply to the Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, nor in his entire deposition, is there any whiff of Sheriff Karnes’s personal involvement in or awareness of—either directly or indirectly—Petty’s situation. What is odd about the posture of this case, then, is that John Does #1 and #2, the prison deputies against whom a § 1983 failure-to-protect or denial-of-medical-care claim most directly should lie, and regarding whose actions such a claim most properly could be assessed, were dismissed from the suit (for improper service, as discussed in Part III-A above). And other prison officials who had some knowledge of what was going on with Petty, such as Deputy Sheriff Barrett and Major Herrell, were not even named as defendants. With this in mind, to the extent Petty’s suit is against Karnes in his personal capacity, it must fail. In fact, by assessing Petty’s claim against Karnes according to the objective/subjective framework laid out in Blackmore, the district court went above and beyond what it needed to do. There simply is no evidence that Sheriff Karnes was in any way directly involved in what happened to Petty, either initially when he was beaten in the No. 06-3552 Petty v. County of Franklin, Ohio, et al. Page 8 jail cell, or later when his surgery was delayed and his requests for liquid food were allegedly not met. As this Court has stated, in order for § 1983 liability to attach to an individual municipal supervisor, [t]here must be a showing that the supervisor encouraged the specific incident of misconduct or in some other way directly participated in it. At a minimum, a § 1983 plaintiff must show that a supervisory official at least implicitly authorized, approved or knowingly acquiesced in the unconstitutional conduct of the offending subordinate. Taylor v. Michigan Dep’t of Corrs., 69 F.3d 76, 81 (6th Cir. 1995) (emphasis omitted) (quoting Bellamy v. Bradley, 729 F.2d 416, 421 (6th Cir. 1984)); see also Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21, 25 (1991) (stating that to establish personal liability of a government official under § 1983, a plaintiff must show that the official caused the deprivation of a federal right). Thus, if Petty’s suit is against Karnes in his personal capacity, Petty fails to meet the causation requirements laid out in Taylor. To the extent that Petty’s suit is against Karnes in his official capacity, it is nothing more than a suit against Franklin County itself. Graham, 473 U.S. at 166; see also Defendants’ Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss and Motion for Summary Judgment, 10/3/2005, at 17-22. And as Defendants point out, Petty was unable to come forward with evidence—beyond the bare allegations in his complaint—showing that a Franklin County custom or policy was the moving force behind the violation of his constitutional rights. See, e.g., Garretson v. City of Madison Heights, 407 F.3d 789, 796 (6th Cir. 2005). Quite to the contrary, the record clearly indicates that County officials acted with due care in responding to Petty’s injuries and medical needs. To be sure, County officials did not permit Petty to be transported to the hospital for surgery on April 11 or April 12. But Petty has presented no evidence that his injury was exacerbated by the failure to operate on those dates. Petty’s surgery had been put off once before (when he was initially brought to the hospital on April 5), and Dr. Gordillo did not express concern that it be put off again. In fact, any delay in Petty’s surgery would seem to be attributable more to Dr. Gordillo’s own schedule—i.e., that she does not operate on weekends except in emergencies—than to any policy or custom of Franklin County. Petty similarly fails to present evidence of any County custom or practice that jeopardized his safety, let alone caused his injury, when he was initially placed among other inmates in jail. Finally, Petty fails to raise a genuine issue of material fact that the County failed to train its employees in a manner amounting to “deliberate indifference” to his safety or medical needs. See City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378, 388 (1989). Even with the benefit of discovery, therefore, Petty simply has not established a violation of his constitutional rights that can in any way be attributed to Franklin County.