WACO—Ten defendants—including Sheriff David Greene, Prosecutor Bill Torrey and Milam County itself—filed a motion in a Waco federal district court Friday asking that a lawsuit filed by a former prisoner be dismissed.
It maintains the suit, filed in April by John L. Robertson of Rockdale, failed to state a plausible claim to which relief could be granted by the court.
Robertson had claimed he suffered two weeks of partial paralysis from the waist down and was now personally disabled due to treatment at the hands of the sheriff’s department and failure to receive proper medical treatment.
He also alleged “retaliation” from the sheriff and prosecutor by extending his stay in the county jail.
Other defendants in Robertson’s suit are Chief Deputy Chris White, former captain/jail supervisor Katrina Douglas, Capt. Ryan Blankenmeyer, jailers Jonathan Mendoza, Cindy McBee and Joshua Hughes, jail nurse Stephanie Vargas and inmate physician Dr. Stuart Yoffe.
‘PLAUSIBLE’—The 13-page document, filed by the Austin law firm Allison, Bass & Magee, addresses complaints against each defendant individually, citing case laws.
It contends a suit such as Robertson’s “...must contain sufficient facts, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face” and “...requires the Plaintiff to show the plausibility of entitlement to relief under the law.”
At the heart of Robertson’s original suit and Friday’s response are allegations of mistreatment.
The defendants’ answer maintains such a claim must prove “deliberate indifference” and adds “a prison official acts with deliberate indifference only if they know that an inmate faces a substantial risk of serious bodily harm and that they disregard that risk by failing to take reasonable measures to abate it.”
Friday’s response also quotes a Fifth Circuit Court opinion:
“Unsuccessful medical treatment, acts of negligence, or medical malpractice do not constitute deliberate indifference, nor does a prisoner’s disagreement with his medical treatment, absent exceptional circumstances.”
POINTS—The defendants’ answer argues the following points, with relevance to charges against the defendants in Robertson’s suit in parentheses:
• The Fifth Circuit has held that if a law enforcement department meets the state standard for the training of its law enforcement officers, a plaintiff cannot sustain a failure to train cause of action. (Greene, White, Torrey).
• On “retaliation” and “delaying arraignment” allegations, court records show Robertson was arrested June 10, 2017, and discharged June 13, 2017. (Greene, Torrey).
• On holding the county liable, citing a previous case, the Plaintiff must show use of excessive force, or deliberate indifference, is a policy or custom of the county. (Milam County).
• The complaint does not allege any fact, that even taken as true, amounts to a malicious and sadistic use of force. Plaintiff threatened to kill himself and was placed on suicide watch, an appropriate response. The defendants removed his clothing, undoubtedly for the purpose of taking away a suicidal person’s clothing to prevent them hanging themselves with it. (Mendoza, McBee and Hughes).
• Regarding allegations of verbal abuse, under the statute cited in the plaintiff’s suit, verbal abuse by a prison guard does not give rise to a cause of action. (Blankenmeyer).
• As to allegations medical officials failed to treat or monitor Robertson’s blood pressure and alleged back injury, a prison medical official is not liable for failure to provide medical care for an inmate unless that failure was due to deliberate indifference to the prisoner’s medical needs. (Dr. Yoffe, Vargas).
IMMUNITY—The reply concludes by maintaining the defendants are entitled to “qualified, official and sovereign immunity” and defines qualified immunity as follows:
“Qualified immunity shields from liability officials who perform their duties reasonably and applies regardless of whether the government official’s effort is a mistake of law, a mistake of fact or a mistake based on questions of both law and fact.”
It maintains there are two tests for successfully prevailing over qualified immunity in a lawsuit:
“The Plaintiff must establish that a public official’s conduct deprived the Plaintiff of a clearly established Constitutional right.”
“...whether the official’s conduct is objectively reasonable.”
CONCLUSION—Friday’s reply concludes:
“In this case the Defendants were engaged in the exercise of discretionary duties and acted within the course and scope of their duties as law enforcement officers employed by Milam County, Texas, with objectively reasonable expectations that their conduct was reasonable, lawful and necessary in light of all attendant circumstances.
“At no time did the Defendants violate a clearly established constitutional right. Nor were any of the officers’ actions objectively unreasonable. Therefore, the Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.”
The reply seeks all relief sought by the plaintiff be denied and the defendants recover costs and attorney fees “along with such other relief which they may show themselves entitled.”
- Log in or Subscribe to post comments.