ROBERT G. DOUMAR, Senior District Judge.
The plaintiff, Eugene Dewitt Costine ("Plaintiff"), filed this Section 1983 action against the defendants, Correct Care Solutions, LLC and Hampton Roads Regional Jail Authority, seeking $10 million in damages stemming from the amputation of his left foot in June 2017, which Plaintiff claims was caused by the allegedly negligent medical care he received as an inmate in Hampton Roads Regional Jail in Portsmouth, Virginia, from 2016 to 2017. Defendant Correct Care Solutions, LLC moved to dismiss or, in the alternative, strike Counts I, V, VI, and VII of the amended complaint on various grounds. ECF No. 40. For the reasons stated herein, such motion is
On January 29, 2019, Eugene D. Costine ("Plaintiff") filed the instant action against defendants Correct Care Solutions, LLC ("CCS") and Hampton Roads Regional Jail Authority ("HRRJA") (collectively, "Defendants") seeking $10 million in damages for injuries sustained due to the allegedly inadequate medical care Plaintiff received while incarcerated at Hampton Roads Regional Jail. Complaint, ECF No. 1 (hereinafter "Compl."). On March 1, 2019, defendant CCS filed its answer to the complaint along with several affirmative defenses. ECF No. 14. On March 20, 2019, defendant HRRJA filed its answer to the complaint along with several affirmative defenses. ECF No. 18.
On March 20, 2019, HRRJA also filed a Motion to Dismiss the complaint pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ("FRCP") along with a supporting memorandum. ECF Nos. 16, 17. The motion was fully briefed.
On October 10, 2019, CCS filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings pursuant to Rule 12(c) of the FRCP along with a supporting memorandum ("Mem."). ECF Nos. 31, 32. Plaintiff failed to timely respond. By Order dated November 1, 2019, the Court granted CCS's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, thereby dismissing Plaintiff's complaint without prejudice. ECF No. 33. Further, the Court granted Plaintiff an opportunity to file an amended complaint within fourteen days of the date therein.
Accordingly, Plaintiff filed his Amended Complaint (hereinafter "Am. Compl.") on November 13, 2019, ECF No. 35, to which CCS filed its Answer on November 26, 2019, ECF No. 39. On November 26, 2019, CCS filed the instant Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, Strike Counts I, V, VI, and VII of Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint (hereinafter "Motion to Dismiss or Strike" or "Motion") along with a supporting memorandum ("Mem."). ECF Nos. 40, 41. Plaintiff failed to timely respond. CCS's Motion to Dismiss or Strike is now before the Court.
A Rule 12(b)(6) motion permits dismissal of a complaint where it "fail[s] to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). A Rule 12(b)(6) motion must be read in conjunction with Rule 8(a)(2), which requires "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief," Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), so as to "give the defendant fair notice of what the ... claim is and the grounds upon which it rests."
Because a Rule 12(b)(6) motion tests the sufficiency of a complaint without resolving factual disputes, the court "must accept as true all of the factual allegations contained in the complaint" and "draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff."
Alternatively, CCS asks the Court to strike Counts I, V, VI, and VII of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint pursuant to Rule 12(f). Rule 12(f) states:
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f). "Rule 12(f) motions are generally viewed with disfavor `because striking a portion of a pleading is a drastic remedy and because it is often sought by the movant simply as a dilatory tactic.'"
As set forth above, when deciding CCS's Motion to Dismiss or Strike, the Court must assume the truth of all well-pleaded factual allegations contained in Plaintiff's amended complaint. These allegations are as follows.
In or about November 2014, Plaintiff, a resident of Newport News, Virginia, underwent surgery on his left foot at the VCU Medical Center in Richmond. Am. Compl. ¶ 1, 8. He was subsequently placed under the care of Dr. Eugene Link of TPMG in Newport News, who conducted home-care visits at Plaintiff's home three times a week.
On or about October 2, 2016, Plaintiff was detained in the Newport News City Jail by the Newport News Sheriff's Department.
On or about October 17, 2016, Plaintiff was transferred from Newport News City Jail to Maryview Hospital where he underwent surgery to clear out an infection in his left foot.
While being held at HRRJ, and while under the care of CCS, Plaintiff's wounds were not cared for as directed in the Plaintiff's discharge instructions from Maryview Hospital.
In March 2017, CCS medical staff placed Plaintiff's foot in a Unaboot.
At some point between March 2017 and June 2017, Plaintiff's left foot began to emit noxious odors and to seep fluid.
Plaintiff was then transported to Sentara Norfolk General Hospital where he was diagnosed with sepsis.
In its Motion, Defendant CCS contends: (1) Plaintiff's negligence claim in Count I is time-barred; (2) Plaintiff's punitive damages claim in Count V is not an independent cause of action; and (3) Plaintiff's jury demand in Count VI and prayer for relief in Count VII do not qualify as counts for purposes of pleading. For the reasons below, the Court agrees.
CCS first argues that Plaintiff's medical negligence claim is barred by the one-year statute of limitations set forth in Va. Code § 8.01-243.2. ECF No. 41 at 5. Such provision provides:
Va. Code § 8.01-243.2 (emphasis added). CCS argues that Plaintiff's negligence claim relates to the conditions of his confinement and, because he fails to allege any exhaustion of administrative remedies, Plaintiff was required to bring such claim within one year of the cause of action accruing. CCS further argues that the latest the cause of action could have accrued is on December 1, 2017 when Plaintiff was release from HRRJ. Based on this date, Plaintiff had until December 1, 2018 to file his complaint. However, Plaintiff did not file the complaint until January 29, 2019.
For the same reasons stated in the Court's Order dated July 2, 2019, ECF No. 29, and in accordance with the law of the case doctrine, the Court finds that Plaintiff's state-law negligence claim against CCS is barred by the applicable statute of limitations. Accordingly, Count I of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint must be dismissed.
CCS next contends that Virginia does not recognize Plaintiff's punitive damages claim in Count V as an independent cause of action. ECF No. 41 at 6. Accordingly, CCS requests that the Court dismiss Count V. In Count V of his Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that CCS's conduct "was no [sic] willful and wanton, or reckless, as to evidence a conscious disregard for the [sic] rights of others...." Am. Compl. ¶ 56. Plaintiff then contends that such conduct warrants "the imposition of significant punitive damages."
It is unclear why Plaintiff has listed "punitive damages" as a count in the amended complaint. Curiously, Plaintiff later includes the request for punitive damages under the "Prayer for Relief" section of the amended complaint.
Despite this dismissal, it "make[s] no practical difference here because [plaintiff] makes the same request in its prayer for relief."
Lastly, CCS asserts that Plaintiff's jury demand in Count VI and prayer for relief in Count VII should be dismissed or stricken, as they are not counts for the purposes of pleading. ECF No. 41 at 6. To be clear, Plaintiff makes a standalone jury demand in Count VI and prayer for relief in Count VII. Am. Comp. Counts VI-VII. As such, Counts VI and VII consist of nothing further in substance beyond the jury demand and prayer for relief.
A proper count within a complaint must include a cause of action.
For the reasons above, CCS's Motion to Dismiss or Strike, ECF No. 40, is
The Clerk is further