United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
DWANN ARTHUR, as Personal Representative of the Estate of WARREN ANDERSON, Deceased Plaintiff,
CORRECTIONS OFFICERS NATHAN HELPER, HAMILTON, WRIGHT, and LEVY, Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART
DEFENDANTS' REVISED MOTION TO DISMISS [ECF #10]
Victoria A. Roberts United States District Judge.
Dwann Arthur (“Plaintiff”) is personal
representative of the estate of Warren Anderson, deceased
(“Anderson”). Defendants are corrections officers
Helper, Hamilton, Wright, and Levy
(“Defendants”). Plaintiff brings this civil
rights action for damages under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983,
1985, and 1986; the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the
United States Constitution; and related state law claims, on
behalf of Anderson. These claims stem from Anderson's
health care while incarcerated.
move to dismiss Count II of Plaintiff's complaint and
claims for survivors' losses attached to Counts I and II.
following reasons, the Court GRANTS
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss in part and
DENIES it in part.
summary of the facts is sufficient.
was housed at Parnall Correctional Facility when he began to
exhibit serious medical symptoms, including respiratory
distress, inability to walk, physical weakness, and rapid
breathing. Defendants allegedly ignored these symptoms and
failed to respond to Anderson's cries for help despite
their awareness of the severity of the situation, resulting
in Anderson's death around April 8, 2018.
of Plaintiff's complaint is a deliberate indifference
claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Eighth Amendment to
the United States Constitution. Count II is a state-law claim
for gross negligence. Counts I and II rely on the same facts
and allegations. This is the basis for Defendants' motion
to dismiss Count II: they say Plaintiff cannot bring a claim
of gross negligence based on the same facts underlying a
federal constitutional torts claim.
makes claims for survivor's losses on both the federal
and state claims.
also argue: (1) the Court should decline to extend
supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims, and (2)
Plaintiff cannot bring a claim attached to Counts I for
survivor's losses such as loss of companionship and
society, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Court GRANTS the Motion to Dismiss Count II and DENIES it for
claims for survivor's losses. The issue of supplemental
jurisdiction is moot.
survive a motion to dismiss, the nonmoving party must allege
enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on
its face. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007). The facts
must be construed in the light most favorable to the
nonmoving party. Power & Tel. Supply Co. v. SunTrust
Banks, Inc. 447 F.3d 923, 929-30 ...