Jermaine Antoine English v. David Cox, Dr. Bruce St. Amour, NP Kimla McDanial-Nagari, and Sheriff Antonio D. Hash

Summary

The United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia dismissed Jermaine Antoine English’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims against jail defendants David Cox and Antonio D. Hash, concluding that the amended complaint did not plausibly allege deliberate indifference to serious medical needs under either the Eighth or Fourteenth Amendment. The court dismissed the claims against medical defendants Bruce St. Amour and Kimla McDanial-Nagari based on bankruptcy-related discharge and injunction orders concerning their employer, Wellpath Holdings, Inc., and denied their motion to dismiss as moot.

Holdings

1. Plaintiff failed to state a plausible Eighth Amendment claim against Hash because his allegations do not show that Hash's actions were insufficient to mitigate any risk of harm to Plaintiff arising from his medical needs.
2. Plaintiff failed to state a plausible Eighth Amendment claim against Cox because he did not sufficiently allege that Cox was personally involved in the denial of medical treatment or deliberately interfered with Plaintiff's ability to seek treatment.
3. Plaintiff failed to state a plausible Fourteenth Amendment claim against Hash because his allegations do not demonstrate that Hash intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly acted in a manner insufficient to address any risk to Plaintiff or that Hash should have known the transfer posed an unjustifiably high risk of harm.
4. Plaintiff failed to state a plausible Fourteenth Amendment claim against Cox because his allegations are conclusory and do not show that Cox's personal action or inaction posed an unjustifiably high risk of harm or that Cox intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly failed to address the risk.
5. Plaintiff's claims against the Medical Defendants are subject to dismissal based on the bankruptcy court's Confirmation Order and Stay Order, which discharged claims against Wellpath Holdings, Inc. and its related parties, including employees and agents, and enjoined claim holders from continuing actions.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Plaintiff stated a plausible Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference claim against the Jail Defendants (Hash and Cox)
2. Whether Plaintiff stated a plausible Fourteenth Amendment deliberate-indifference claim against the Jail Defendants (Hash and Cox)
3. Whether Plaintiff's claims against the Medical Defendants (Dr. St. Amour and NP McDanial-Nagari) are barred by bankruptcy court orders discharging claims against their employer and related parties

Disposition

dismissed