United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division
RAYMOND GUDINO, THE ESTATE OF RAYMOND GUDINO, by Lesha Creek as Personal Representative, and LESHA CREEK individually, Plaintiffs,
HAMILTON COUNTY SHERIFF DEPARTMENT, JARROD HILL, OFFICER, KEVIN HALE, OFFICER, and TIM REED, NURSE, Defendants.
ENTRY GRANTING DEFENDANT TIM REED'S MOTION FOR
JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS ON PLAINTIFFS' FEDERAL
WALTON PRATT, JUDGE
matter is before the Court on Defendant Tim Reed's
(“Nurse Reed”) Motion for Judgment on the
Pleadings on Plaintiffs' Federal Claims filed pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) (Filing No.
15). On March 5, 2018, Plaintiffs, the Estate of Raymond
Gudino, by Personal Representative Lesha Creek and Lesha
Creek individually (“Plaintiffs”), filed a
Complaint for Wrongful Death and Request for Jury Trial,
asserting various constitutional and statutory claims against
Nurse Reed, the Hamilton County Sheriff's Department,
Officer Jarrod Hill, and Officer Kevin Hale (Filing No.
1). For the reasons stated below, Nurse Reed's
Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Filing No. 15)
following facts are not necessarily objectively true, but as
required when reviewing a motion for judgment on the
pleadings, the Court accepts as true all factual allegations
in the Complaint and draws all inferences in favor of
Plaintiffs as the non-moving party. See Emergency Servs.
Billing Corp. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 668 F.3d 459, 464
(7th Cir. 2012).
2017, Raymond Gudino (“Gudino”) was a juvenile
inmate housed at the Hamilton County Juvenile Detention
Center. At 17 years old, Gudino had a history of suicide and
diagnosed mental health issues. (Filing No. 1 at 2.)
On June 6, 2017, Gudino was placed in medical lockdown after
eating a bar of soap. Id. On June 14, 2017, Gudino
died, but the Complaint does not reveal the cause of death
other than to say that he died “as a direct and
proximate result of the failure of the Defendants to follow
their own policies regulations and procedures.”
Id. at 2-3. The Complaint stresses that Gudino had a
history of suicide attempts, and that the Defendants did not
“receive sufficient training with respect to suicide
precautions, suicide risk, first aid and CPR.”
Id. The Complaint hints, but does not expressly say,
that Gudino committed suicide in his cell on June 8, 2017.
15, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a Complaint alleging five counts
against all Defendants: (1) deprivation of rights,
privileges, and immunities secured by the Constitution and
law of the United States under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; (2)
denial of privileges and immunities under Article IV, Section
II of the United States Constitution; (3) due process and
equal protection violations under Amendment XIV, Section I of
the United States Constitution; (4) violation of the
prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment in Amendment
VIII of the United States Constitution; and (5) wrongful
death under Indiana's Child Wrongful Death Act.
Reed was an employee of the Hamilton County Sheriff's
Department, which is legally responsible for management of
the Juvenile Detention Center. Id. at 4. Other than
identifying him as such, the Complaint does not mention Nurse
Reed except in its references to the Defendants collectively.
It asserts “[t]he Defendants were on notice of
[Gudino's] past attempts to commit suicide.”
Id. at 2. According to the Complaint, “[t]he
Defendants were to be in contact with Raymond Gudino at least
every fifteen (15) minutes and further by the Defendants'
own admission they were to conduct block checks every fifteen
(15) minutes. The Defendants failed to provide proper
observation for Raymond….” Id. at 3.
The Complaint also alleges Defendants “failed to
provide proper medical treatment constituting a deliberate
indifference to the serious medical needs of Raymond
Gudino” and that failure resulted in his death.
Id. at 3.
“Factual Basis for Claims for Relief” section,
the Complaint states:
The Defendants took no steps, or grossly inadequate steps to
implement procedures and protocol complying with the United
States Constitution and the Indiana State Constitution, and
their own rules and procedures and the common law of the
State of Indiana with respect to the incarceration and
treatment of Raymond Gudino, and also failed to take steps to
ensure on the date of his death that the procedures that were
in place for his proper care and treatment while in detention
Id. at 5. Nurse Reed filed an Answer to the
Complaint on March 30, 2018 (Filing No. 9). The
other Defendants filed their Answer on April 4, 2018
(Filing No. 11). Nurse Reed moved for judgment on
the pleadings on April 30, 2018.
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) permits a party to move for
judgment after the parties have filed a complaint and an
answer. Rule 12(c) motions are analyzed under the same
standard as a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).
Pisciotta v. Old Nat'l Bancorp., 499 F.3d 629,
633 (7th Cir. 2007); Frey v. Bank One, 91 F.3d 45,
46 (7th Cir. 1996). The complaint must allege facts that are
“enough to raise a right to relief above the
speculative level.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). Although
“detailed factual allegations” are not required,
mere “labels, ” “conclusions, ” or
“formulaic recitation[s] of the elements of a cause of
action” are insufficient. Id. Stated
differently, the complaint must include “enough facts
to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face.” Hecker v. Deere & Co., 556 F.3d
575, 580 (7th Cir. 2009) (internal citation and quotation
marks omitted). To be facially plausible, the complaint must
allow “the court to draw the reasonable inference that
the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556).
Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the court will grant a Rule 12(c)
motion only if “it appears beyond doubt that the
plaintiff cannot prove any facts that would support his claim
for relief.” N. Ind. Gun & Outdoor Shows, Inc.
v. City of S. Bend, 163 F.3d 449, 452 (7th Cir. 1998)
(quoting Craigs, Inc. v. Gen. Elec. Capital Corp.,
12 F.3d 686, 688 (7th Cir. 1993)). The factual allegations in
the complaint are viewed in a light most favorable to the
non-moving party; however, the court is “not obliged to
ignore any facts set forth in the complaint that undermine
the plaintiff's claim or to assign any weight to
unsupported conclusions of law.” Id. (quoting
R.J.R. Serv., Inc. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 895
F.2d 279, 281 (7th Cir. 1989)). “As the title of the
rule implies, Rule 12(c) permits a judgment based on the
pleadings alone…. The pleadings include the complaint,
the answer, and any written instruments attached as
exhibits.” Id. (internal citations omitted).