Are Jail Negligence Injury and Death Lawsuits Easy to File?

Lawsuits in jail neglect cases can be complicated, due to constitutional standards that apply, qualified immunity, whether a court can dismiss a case based on the document filed to start the lawsuit, and whether a plaintiff, who could be an injured person or a family member of a person who died in a jail, can obtain more information from defendants before having to respond to a motion to dismiss the case. It is vitally important that a person who wants to file suit against jail, or the county or company running the jail, for negligence or constitutional violations, fully understand these issues. A recent federal district court order addresses a number of these issues and is an interesting way to gain a better understanding.

We cite that order, but we do not contend that any of the allegations made by the plaintiff or anyone else in it are accurate or true. The order is a public record, and we use it simply to demonstrate how some of these issues in civil rights jail neglect litigation are resolved.

In that case, Gaven Picciano, the plaintiff, filed a lawsuit against Clark County, Clark County Jail, Wellpath, LLC, and NaphCare, Inc., the defendants. Wellpath and Naphcare provide healthcare in some jails across the United States. The case is being heard in the United States District Court, Western District of Washington. The judge issued an order on January 29, 2024, addressing two motions: a motion for judgment on the pleadings filed by NaphCare, Inc., and a motion to compel discovery filed by the plaintiff.

Background:

Plaintiff Gaven Picciano alleges that the defendants had a policy of not providing medically necessary diets until they had requested, reviewed, and determined medical records to support a detainee’s request for a modified diet plan.
Picciano suffers from Celiac Disease, which requires a strict gluten-free diet. Ingesting gluten causes him various severe symptoms. More information regarding Celiac Disease can be found here – https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/celiac-disease/symptoms-causes/syc-20352220
After being arrested and booked at the Clark County Jail, Picciano alleges that he repeatedly requested gluten-free meals, and that his requests were not accommodated.
The medical care provider at the jail changed from Wellpath to NaphCare during Picciano’s incarceration, and the plaintiff alleged that he continued to face difficulties in obtaining the appropriate diet.
Picciano’s alleges that health deteriorated significantly due to the lack of proper food, and he went without appropriate food for approximately 20 days. He alleged that he suffered injuries as a result. Once again, we do not know whether any of the allegations are true. We include them here for context.

Procedural History:

Picciano filed a Second Amended Complaint, alleging violations of his Fourteenth Amendment rights and the Rehabilitation Act.
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which was partially granted and partially denied.
NaphCare filed a motion asserting that Picciano failed to adequately plead his claims, while Picciano filed a motion to compel discovery related to federal financial assistance received by the defendants. This is a common situation, in which a defendant wants to have the case dismissed based on allegations made in the plaintiff’s complaint, while the plaintiff wants to seek “discovery,” which is finding out additional information regarding the plaintiff’s claims. Courts must grapple with this issue frequently, and the law differs greatly across the United States about how courts must handle the issue.

Discussion:

The court denied NaphCare’s motion for judgment on the pleadings regarding the what is referred to as a Monell claim. A Monell claim is named after a United States Supreme Court case, in which the Court determined that a city, county, or potentially even private health care company (in later decisions by courts) is a “person” for purposes of a jail neglect constitutional law claim.
The court found that Picciano had adequately alleged the deprivation of a constitutional right, the existence of a policy, deliberate indifference, and that the policy was the moving force behind his injuries. People who are allegedly injured as a result of jail neglect must show that the neglect was a moving force behind the injuries, or in other words that the neglect caused the injuries.
The court also upheld Picciano’s alleged Rehabilitation Act claim against NaphCare, finding that NaphCare was a proper defendant and that deliberate indifference had been alleged. Once again, this does not mean that the allegation was true. The court just determined that the plaintiff had alleged enough to continue with the lawsuit.
Picciano’s request for discovery related to federal financial assistance received by the defendants was granted, and the court ordered NaphCare and Wellpath to provide complete responses to specific discovery requests.
The court emphasized that whether NaphCare and Wellpath received federal financial assistance would be determined after further discovery and factual inquiry.

In this case, the court denied NaphCare’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and granted Picciano’s motion to compel discovery. The court allowed the case to proceed, emphasizing that further factual inquiry was necessary to determine whether the defendants received federal financial assistance as alleged under the Rehabilitation Act.

If you suffered life-altering injuries in a jail, or you are the family member of a person who died in a jail as a result of negligence or potentially constitutional violations, we might be able to help. Feel free to reach out to our law firm.

Written By: