United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Tacoma
ORDER ON THE PARTIES' STATUS REPORTS
J. BRYAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter comes before the Court on the status reports of
Plaintiff (Dkt. 64), Defendant Correct Care Solutions, LLC
(Dkt. 65), and Defendant Pierce County, Washington (Dkt. 66)
and the Third-Party Defendant Correct Care Solutions,
LLC's Motion to Dismiss Pierce County's Third Party
Complaint (Dkt. 67). The Court has considered the reports,
the motion, and the remaining file herein.
a former prisoner, asserted claims against the Defendants for
two distinct events: the medical treatment of a leg lesion
and a physical attack by a rival gang. Dkt. 26. Plaintiff
made claims for violation of his eighth amendment rights and
for negligence against Defendants Steve Carver and Kristin
Berres for medical treatment of a leg lesion. Id.
Plaintiff asserted a negligence claim against Defendant
Pierce County in connection with the medical treatment of his
leg lesion. Id. Plaintiff alleged claims against
Defendant Pierce County for violation of his federal
constitutional rights and for negligence when it housed him
in the jail with violent rival gang members who beat him.
Id. The Second Amended Complaint also asserted
claims against “Defendants Pierce County correctional
officers John Doe (1) and Jane Doe (1)” for violation
of Plaintiff's eighth amendment rights and for negligence
in connection with the gang attack. Id.
extent it is found liable for the Plaintiff's claims
against it related to the attack, Defendant Pierce County
asserts cross claims against Naitaalii Jeovan Toleafoa. Dkt.
31. To the extent it is found liable for the treatment of
Plaintiff's leg lesion, Defendant Pierce County also
makes cross claims against Correct Care Solutions LLC.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
facts and procedural history are in the Court's September
5, 2017 Order on Defendants Steve Carver and Kristin
Berres's Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 62, at 1-3)
and the September 5, 2017 Order on Defendant Pierce County,
Washington's Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 63, at
Carver and Berres' motion to summarily dismiss
Plaintiff's claims against them for violation of his
eighth amendment rights and for negligence regarding the
treatment of his leg lesion was granted, and the claims were
dismissed. Dkt. 62.
Pierce County's motion for summary dismissal of all the
federal constitutional claims asserted against it was granted
on September 5, 2017, and the constitutional claims were
dismissed. Dkt. 63. The County also moved for summary
dismissal of all Plaintiff's state law claims, including
Plaintiff's negligence claims. Dkt. 48. Plaintiff did not
respond to the motion to dismiss the state law and/or
negligence claims. Dkt. 53. In granting the motion to
summarily dismiss the negligence claims against the County,
the Order provided:
In Washington, “[a]n actionable claim for negligence
includes four essential elements: (1) a duty owed to the
complaining party; (2) a breach of that duty; (3) resulting
injury; and (4) proximate cause between the breach and the
resulting injury.” Stenger v. State, 104
Wn.App. 393, 399 (2001)(citing Pedroza v. Bryant,
101 Wn.2d 226, 228 (1984)).
Negligence Claim Regarding Gang Attack
Plaintiff does not oppose the County's motion to
summarily dismiss this claim. Moreover, Plaintiff has failed
to point to sufficient facts to support his state claim for
negligence against the County regarding the gang attack.
Plaintiff has failed to point to evidence that the County
breached its duty to protect him when it housed him with
rival gang members. He has failed to point to evidence that
inmates were allowed to roam “unsupervised.” He
failed to demonstrate that he was beaten as a result of the
County's failure to have a policy to address the housing
of rival gang members or as a result of the staffing
decisions/monitoring practices of the jail. Defendant Pierce
County's motion to summarily dismiss the negligence claim
based on the attack should be granted.
Negligence Claim Regarding Leg Lesion
Plaintiff's claim for negligence, based on the treatment
of his leg lesion, asserted against Defendant Pierce County,
should be dismissed. Plaintiff did not oppose summary
dismissal of this claim. In any event, he fails to point to
any evidence that Defendant Pierce County breached its duty
of care to him. Further, he has failed to point to any
evidence that he was injured as a result of the County's
Dkt. 63, at 15-16. That order further noted that it was not
clear which claims, if any, remain for trial, which is set to
begin on November 6, 2017. Id., at 16. It provided
that “[b]y this order, all claims asserted against
Pierce County, Washington are dismissed.” Id.
Parties were ordered to file a status report, on or before