Estate of Keandre Bost v. Franklin County/Franklin County Board of Commissioners

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

The Estate of Keandre Bost,

Plaintiff, Case No. 2:22-cv-4476

V. Judge Michael H. Watson

Franklin County, et al., Magistrate Judge Deavers

Franklin County Defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER

Dallas L. Baldwin, the Franklin County Sheriff (“Sheriff Baldwin”), Franklin

County (“Franklin County”), and its Board of Commissioners, Kevin Boyce, John

O’Grady, and Erica Crawley (“Commissioners,” collectively, “Franklin County

Defendants”), move for judgment on the pleadings in this civil rights case. Mot.,

ECF No. 64. Similarly, Correctional Officers Stephen Withrow (“Withrow’),

Jackie Lucas (“Lucas”), and Justin Coffey (“Coffey”) (“Correctional Officer

Defendants,” together with Franklin County Defendants, “Defendants”) move for

judgment on the pleadings. Mot., ECF No. 60. For the following reasons,

Defendants’ motions are GRANTED.

i FACTS'

The Estate of Keandre Bost (“Plaintiff”) alleges the following. From

September 23, 2021, to December 7, 2021, Keandre Bost (“Bost”) was a pretrial

‘The Court accepts Plaintiffs factual allegations as true for Defendants’ motions. See

Fritz v. Charter Twp. of Comstock, 592 F.3d 718, 722 (6th Cir. 2010).

detainee at Franklin County Corrections Center | (“FCCC |”). Am. Compl. ¥ 1,

ECF No. 46. He informed “staff” of his mental illness and prior suicide attempts

when he was booked into the jail. /d. | 36. Bost was assigned various

classification levels, moved cells multiple times, was transported to and from the

hospital several times, was placed on and off safety watches and mental health

observations, and attempted suicide during his time at the jail. /d. 7] 36-65. All

of those actions were taken by staff who are not named as Defendants. See id.

Bost tragically hung himself in his jail cell on December 7, 2021, and died several

days later. /d. J 1.

Additional factual allegations concerning the specific Defendants are

addressed below.

ll. STANDARD OF REVIEW

“A motion for judgment on the pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 12(c) generally follows the same rules as a motion to dismiss the

complaint under Rule 12(b)(6).” Bates v. Green Farms Condo. Ass’n, 958 F.3d

470, 480 (6th Cir. 2020) (citing D'Ambrosio v. Marino, 747 F.3d 378, 383 (6th Cir.

2014)). “For purposes of a motion for judgment on the pleadings, all well-

pleaded material allegations of the pleadings of the opposing party must be taken

as true, and the motion may be granted only if the moving party is nevertheless

clearly entitled to judgment.” Fritz, 592 F.3d at 722 (citing JPMorgan Chase

Bank v. Winget, 510 F.3d 577, 581 (6th Cir. 2007) (internal citations and

quotation marks omitted)).

Case No. 2:22-cv-4476 Page 2 of 12

As with a 12(b)(6) motion, a claim survives a motion for judgment on the

pleadings if it “contain[s] sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a

claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678

(2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “The

plausibility standard is not akin to a ‘probability requirement,’ but it asks for more

than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.” /d. (quoting

Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). This standard “calls for enough fact to raise a

reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence of [unlawful conduct].”

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 556 (2007). A pleading’s “[flactual

allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level,

on the assumption that all the allegations in the [pleading] are true (even if

doubtful in fact).” /d. at 555 (internal citations omitted). The Court “must

construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the [non-moving party].”

Engler v. Arnold, 862 F.3d 571, 574 (6th Cir. 2017). However, the non-moving

party must provide “more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation

of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555.

lll. ANALYSIS

Plaintiff sues Franklin County Defendants in their official capacities only.

Am. Compl. ff] 9-10, ECF No. 46. Plaintiff sues Franklin County Defendants for

deliberate indifference to serious medical needs, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983;

discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), and wrongful

Case No. 2:22-cv-4476 Page 3 of 12

death and survivorship under Ohio law. Am. Compl. Jf] 96-131, ECF No. 46.

Franklin County Defendants move to dismiss each claim. Mot., ECF No. 64.

Plaintiff sues Correctional Officer Defendants in their individual capacities

only. Am. Compl. Ff] 12-14, ECF No. 46. Plaintiff sues Correctional Officer

Defendants for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs, pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983; and wrongful death and survivorship under Ohio law. Am. Compl.

123-31, ECF No. 46. They also move to dismiss each claim. Mot., ECF No.

60.

The Court begins by addressing Plaintiff's federal claims before turning to

the state-law claims.

A. Federal Claims

1. Deliberate Indifference to Serious Medical Needs under 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983

a. Franklin County Defendants

The import of Plaintiff's § 1983 deliberate indifference claim against

Franklin County Defendants is that Franklin County Defendants chose Armor

Health of Ohio, LLC to provide medical services in Ohio’s jails knowing that

Armor Health of Ohio, LLC’s parent company, Armor Correctional Health

Services, Inc., had a history of providing inadequate medical care—to the extent

that it had been expelled from multiple jails and even barred from operating in

New York state. Am. Compl. If] 23-28, ECF No. 46. Therefore, Franklin County

Defendants are liable for Armor Health of Ohio LLC’s deliberate indifference to

Case No. 2:22-cv-4476 Page 4 of 12

Plaintiff's serious medical needs, because Defendant's “policy” of hiring Armor

Health of Ohio, LLC was the “moving force” behind Armor Health of Ohio LLC’s

violation of Plaintiff's constitutional right. /d. J 117.

This theory of liability is precluded by the Court’s prior Opinion and Order,

ECF No. 61, which found that the Amended Complaint failed to state that any

employee of Armor Health of Ohio, LLC was deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff's

serious medical needs. Because no Armor Health of Ohio, LLC employee

violated Bost’s constitutional rights, Franklin County Defendants likewise did not

violate Bost’s constitutional rights by choosing Armor Health of Ohio, LLC to

provide medical care to Bost (and others). In other words, without an underlying

violation by Armor Health of Ohio, LLC, there is nothing to hold Franklin County

Defendants liable for. See Chambers v. Sanders, 63 F.4th 1092, 1101-02 (6th

Cir. 2023) (“With no underlying rights violation plausibly established in their

complaint, we affirm the district court's dismissal of [plaintiffs’] Monel/ claim

against the city.”); Robertson v. Lucas, 753 F.3d 606, 622 (6th Cir. 2014) (“There

can be no liability under Monell without an underlying constitutional violation.”

(citation omitted)). Thus, Plaintiff's claim fails to the extent it alleges Franklin

County Defendants’ custom, practice, or policy was the moving force behind

Armor Health of Ohio LLC’s deliberate indifference to Plaintiff's serious medical

needs.

Plaintiff also alleges municipal liability based on the deliberate indifference

of Correctional Officer Defendants. Am. Compl. J 116, ECF No. 46. Because

Case No. 2:22-cv-4476 Page 5 of 12

the Court finds, below, that Plaintiff fails to state a deliberate indifference claim

against Correctional Officer Defendants, Franklin County Defendants are entitled

to judgment on the pleadings on this theory of Monell liability as well.

In conclusion, Franklin County Defendants are entitled to judgment on the

pleadings on all of Plaintiffs § 1983 deliberate indifference claims.

b. Withrow, Lucas, and Coffey

Correctional Officer Defendants argue that the Amended Complaint lacks

factual allegations that state a claim for deliberate indifference and, alternatively,

that they are qualifiedly immune from a deliberate indifference claim.

As explained in the Court’s prior Opinion and Order, to state an underlying

Fourteenth Amendment claim for deliberate indifference to a pretrial detainee’s

serious medical need, a plaintiff must establish (1) that he “had a sufficiently

serious medical need” and (2) that “each defendant acted deliberately (not

accidentally), and also recklessly in the face of an unjustifiably high risk of harm

that is either known or so obvious that it should be known.” Helphenstine v.

Lewis Cnty., 60 F.4th 305, 317 (6th Cir. 2023) (cleaned up). In cases involving

suicide, the second element (i.e., the subjective prong) may be satisfied if the

defendant “recklessly overlooked a pretrial detainee’s strong likelihood of

suicide—even if [the defendant] did not subjectively recognize it.” Lawler as next

2 No defendant disputes that the objective element was adequately pleaded, and the

Court therefore does not address it.

Case No. 2:22-cv-4476 Page 6 of 12

fried of Lawler v. Hardeman Cty., Tenn., No. 22-5898, 2024 WL 656912, at *1

(6th Cir. Feb. 16, 2024) (citing Helphenstine, 60 F.4th at 316-17).

Correctional Officer Defendants argue that the Amended Complaint lacks

any factual allegations that, if true, would show they recklessly overlooked Bost’s

strong likelihood of suicide. Mot. 6-7, ECF No. 60. The Court agrees.

Although the Amended Complaint contains myriad factual allegations

about other correctional officers taking various actions with respect to Bost, it is

sparse on facts concerning Correctional Officer Defendants. Aside from alleging

that Correctional Officer Defendants worked for Franklin County as correctional

officers, acted during the pertinent timeframe within the scope of their

employment and under color of law, and acted pursuant to official policies, Am.

Compl. Jf 8, 12-14, 116, the Amended Complaint is silent as to Correctional

Officer Defendants’ knowledge or involvement in the underlying events.

In fact, the Amended Complaint alleges that Withrow and Lucas? were

assigned on the date in question to the floor on which Bost was housed and

“conducted their final watch tour and headcount at 10:40 PM.” Am. Compl.

q1 66-67, ECF No. 46. Regarding Coffey, the Amended Complaint alleges that

he “began his first watch tour and initial headcount at 11:19 PM” and discovered

Bost hanging from his cell bars at 11:23 PM. /d. Jf] 68-69. It further alleges that

each Correctional Officer Defendant untimely performed their rounds. /d. J 91.

3 Lucas was seemingly inadvertently referred to as “Lewis” in various parts of the

Amended Complaint. See id. [| 66-67.

Case No. 2:22-cv-4476 Page 7 of 12

No other facts about Correctional Officer Defendants are contained in the

Amended Complaint.

Correctional Officer Defendants correctly assert:

There are no facts alleged these officers were aware of the reasons

or circumstances for Mr. Bost’s movements throughout the jail. There

are no facts alleged suggesting that they had any interactions with Mr.

Bost prior to his suicide, or that they actually witnessed or noticed

anything about Mr. Bost suggesting that he was about to commit

suicide, to which they were deliberately indifferent. And there are no

facts suggesting that the officers witnessed, were aware, or were

informed that Mr. Bost was taking any action to commit suicide.

Mot. 6, ECF No. 60. Therefore, even taking as true the allegation that they

performed their rounds late, the Amended Complaint does not adequately allege

Correctional Officer Defendants recklessly overlooked a strong likelihood of

suicide.

In response, Plaintiff argues that the Amended Complaint sufficiently

alleges that Correctional Officer Defendants were aware of Bost’s serious

medical need, citing paragraph 75 of the Amended Complaint. That paragraph

reads, “[d]espite Defendants’ knowledge of Keandre Bost’s despondency, his

need for mental health care, and risk of injury, they were deliberately indifferent

to his risk of suicide, particularly by hanging.” Am. Compl. J 75, ECF No. 46.

This allegation, however, is nothing more than a legal conclusion that

Correctional Officer Defendants were deliberately indifferent to Bost’s serious

medical need. The phrase “despite Defendants’ knowledge of Keandre Bost’s

despondency [and] his need for mental health care” cannot be construed as

Case No. 2:22-cv-4476 Page 8 of 12

plausibly alleging that Correctional Officer Defendants possessed knowledge of

Bost’s despondency or need for mental health care when the remaining factual

allegations in the Amended Complaint show, at most, that other correctional

officers had that knowledge. Not once does it allege that anyone, at any time,

relayed information concerning Bost’s mental state to Correctional Officer

Defendants or that they independently became aware of the same.

Plaintiff's further contention—that it can be inferred from the Amended

Complaint that Correctional Officer Defendants failed to timely perform their

rounds in order to ease their work responsibilities—therefore is unhelpful.

Whether the delay was caused by selfish reasons or not, the Amended

Complaint simply does not plausibly allege that Correctional Officer Defendants

delayed their rounds in circumstances in which they should have known of Bost’s

strong likelihood to suicide.

Because the Amended Complaint lacks facts that make plausible an

allegation that any Correctional Officer Defendant knew or should have known of

Bost’s strong likelihood to suicide, the Amended Complaint fails to state a § 1983

deliberate indifference claim against any Correctional Officer Defendant, and

they are entitled to judgment on the pleadings as to such claims.

2. Discrimination Under the Americans with Disabilities Act

The ADA states that “no qualified individual with a disability shall, by

reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the

benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected

Case No. 2:22-cv-4476 Page 9 of 12

to discrimination by any such entity.” 42 U.S.C. § 12132. “To make out a prima

facie case under the ADA,” a plaintiff must allege “that he has a disability; that he

is otherwise qualified; and that he is being excluded from participation in, being

denied the benefits of, or being subjected to discrimination under the program

solely because of his disability.” Centaurs v. Haslam, No. 14-5348, 2014 WL

12972238, at *1 (6th Cir. Oct. 2, 2014) (cleaned up).

Plaintiffs Amended Complaint contains the blanket allegation that Franklin

County Defendants “failed and refused to reasonably accommodate [Plaintiff's]

mental disabilities and to modify their jail facilities, operations, services,

accommodations and programs to reasonably accommodate his disability . . .

when he was in their custody.” Am. Compl. J 100, ECF No. 46. It does not,

however, provide any details about how Plaintiff was excluded from participating,

or denied the benefits of, any jail service, program, or activity. Nor does it

describe the purported accommodation he required to permit participation in such

service, program, or activity.

Moreover, the wrongful denial of mental health treatment, alone, “does not

provide a basis for relief under the ADA.” Brown v. Ohio, No. 1:17-cv-764, 2018

WL 798881, at *4 (S.D. Ohio Jan. 5, 2018) (citations omitted), report and

recommendation adopted by 2018 WL 776268 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 8, 2018). That is,

absent allegations of discrimination or failure to accommodate because of a

disability, a mere deliberate indifference claim does not also state an ADA claim.

Centaurs, 2014 WL 12972238, at *1 (“Centaurs alleged that he was being denied

Case No. 2:22-cv-4476 Page 10 of 12

medical treatment in violation of the ADA but did not allege that he was denied

treatment because of his disability.”); Whitley v. Mich. Dept. of Corr., 2022 WL

16847679, at * 3 (W.D. Mich. Nov. 10, 2022) (“[T]he ADA is not violated by a

prison’s simply failing to attend to the medical needs of its disabled prisoners,

which is what Plaintiff alleges here.” (cleaned up)); Watson v. Mohr, No. 2:17-cv-

457, 2017 WL 6383812, at * (S.D. Ohio Dec. 14, 2017) (“Plaintiff fails to meet the

pleading requirement, in part at least, because his ADA claim is merely an Eighth

Amendment deliberate indifference claim in another statutory guise.”), report and

recommendation adopted by 2018 WL 836484 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 13, 2018).

Here, Plaintiffs Amended Complaint alleges the denial of mental health

treatment but does not allege that Plaintiff was discriminated against, excluded

from participation in, or denied the benefits of anything because of his disability.

Plaintiff does not even attempt to argue otherwise in response to Franklin County

Defendants’ motion. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Amended Complaint fails to state a

claim under the ADA, and that claim against Franklin County Defendants is

DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

B. State-Law Claims

Having dismissed all federal claims, the Court declines to exercise

supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state-law claims. See United Mine

Workers of Am. v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726 (1966) (“Certainly, if the federal

claims are dismissed before trial, even though not insubstantial in a jurisdictional

sense, the state claims should be dismissed as well” (modified by Rosado v.

Case No. 2:22-cv-4476 Page 11 of 12

Wyman, 397 U.S. 397, 402-04 (1970)). Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES

WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiffs state-law claims against Armor Health of Ohio,

LLC, Franklin County Defendants, and Correctional Officer Defendants.

IV. CONCLUSION

This case is tragic. Still, to hold a defendant liable for deliberate

indifference, a complaint must allege facts that make plausible an inference that

the specific defendant either knew or should have known of the plaintiff's serious

medical need. Plaintiff failed to allege such facts here. The Court therefore

DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff's federal claims for failure to state a

claim and DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff's state-law claims due to

a declination of supplemental jurisdiction.4 The Clerk shall terminate ECF Nos.

60 and 64 and close this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED. | / hy Ut,

MICHAEL H. W ON, JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 Although Plaintiff requests leave to amend the Complaint in lieu of dismissal without

prejudice, the request is not accompanied by any developed argument or a copy of the

proposed Second Amended Complaint. Moreover, Plaintiff was already provided an

opportunity to amend the Complaint to correct pleading deficiencies. See ECF Nos. 45,

43, and 46. As such, dismissal without prejudice is appropriate. See Kuyat v.

BioMimetic Therapeutics, Inc., 747 F.3d 435, 444 (6th Cir. 2014) (“Both because the

plaintiffs did not present an adequate motion and because they did not attach a copy of

their amended complaint, the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to

allow the plaintiffs to amend their complaint based on the final sentence of the plaintiffs’

memorandum in opposition.”).

Case No. 2:22-cv-4476 Page 12 of 12