Tyrone Norwood v. Karina Diaz, Erik Lowery, Kelly Devinney, Jane/John Doe, Monroe Hudson, Terra Taylor, Robert May, Stacie Hollis, and Brian Emig

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Delaware granted in part a Rule 12(b)(6) motion filed by medical defendants in Tyrone Norwood’s § 1983 action concerning alleged medical-care deficiencies, retaliation, and removal from a mental-health treatment program. The court dismissed with prejudice the claims against Diaz, Lowery, and Devinney based on conduct before August 16, 2024, dismissed the retaliation claims with prejudice, dismissed the post-August 16 claims against Diaz with prejudice, and dismissed the remaining post-August 16 claims against Lowery and Devinney without prejudice to amendment. The court declined supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law supervisory-liability claims.

Holdings

1. Norwood failed to state a plausible deliberate-indifference claim against Diaz, Lowery, or Devinney for failure to protect, supervise, or train Lemon because he clarified that no sexual misconduct occurred between him and Lemon, eliminating the alleged underlying constitutional violation.
2. Norwood failed to state deliberate-indifference and procedural-due-process claims against Diaz because, after Centurion's contract with the Delaware Department of Correction ended on June 30, 2023, the complaint did not establish that Diaz was acting under color of state law at the relevant facility.
3. Norwood failed to state those claims as pleaded because he did not allege personal involvement by Lowery or Devinney in removing him from the mental-health program, restricting his communications, moving him, or disrupting his medications, but dismissal was without prejudice to amendment.
4. Norwood failed to state a retaliation claim because he clarified that he did not file the PREA complaint, that prison officials initiated the investigation, and that no sexual misconduct occurred with Lemon; consequently, the alleged conduct was not constitutionally protected.
5. The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims after dismissing all claims within its original federal-question jurisdiction.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Norwood plausibly pleaded § 1983 supervisory-liability claims against Diaz, Lowery, and Devinney based on alleged failure to protect, supervise, or train Lemon.
2. Whether Norwood plausibly pleaded § 1983 deliberate-indifference and procedural-due-process claims based on events occurring after August 16, 2024.
3. Whether Norwood plausibly pleaded a § 1983 retaliation claim based on his relationship with Lemon, the PREA investigation, or his alleged status as a victim of misconduct.
4. Whether the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Norwood's state-law negligent hiring, supervision, and training claims after dismissing the federal claims.

Disposition

dismissed