Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

De La Torre v. Corrections Corp. of America

United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division

December 22, 2017

MARCO ANTONIO RODRIGO DE LA TORRE, Individually and as Executor of the Estate of Deceased Juan Carlos Andrade Rodriguez, Plaintiff,


          Benita Y. Pearson United States District Judge.

         Pending is a Rule 12(b)(6) motion for partial dismissal filed by Defendant Corrections Corporation of America (“CoreCivic”)[1] and individual Defendants Dr. Jason A. Rupeka, Dr. Armand Minotti, Dr. David Gabriel, OD, and Danny Hall, P.A. (collectively “Defendants”), seeking dismissal of Plaintiff Marco Antonio Rodrigo De La Torre, individually and as Executor of the Estate of Deceased Juan Carlos Andrade Rodriguez's negligent retention and supervision claim. ECF No. 23. Plaintiff has responded. ECF No. 25. Defendants replied. ECF No. 26. For the reasons that follow, the Court grants the motion.

         I. Background

         Plaintiff originally filed this action in the Mahoning County Court of Common Pleas. Defendants removed the action (ECF No. 1) and filed a motion to dismiss (ECF No. 4). The Court granted the motion, in part, and denied the motion, in part. ECF No. 10. Subsequently, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint. ECF No. 21. The First Amended Complaint contains two counts: (1) a wrongful death claim and (2) a negligent retention and supervision claim. Defendants' motion seeks dismissal of Count II, the negligent retention and supervision claim.

         Plaintiff alleges that Juan Carlos Andrade Rodriguez, an inmate at Northeast Ohio Correctional Center from February 19, 2010 to January 3, 2011, died due to Defendants' failure to monitor his type one diabetes properly during his stay at NEOCC. Id. at PageID #: 152-53. Rodriguez was arrested on February 19, 2010. Id. at PageID #: 154. Plaintiff alleges that, between February 20, 2010 and February 26, 2010, blood glucose readings that prison staff took of Rodriguez ranged from 119 to 600. Plaintiff avers that the American Diabetes Association advises that blood glucose readings should range between 80-130. Id. at PageID #: 154-55.

         Plaintiff alleges that, during Rodriguez's 318-day stay at NEOCC, he was found unresponsive on at least eight occasions and that he spent approximately 200 days in medical isolation. Id. at PageID #: 155-56. Additionally, a few weeks after his arrival, Rodriguez was diagnosed with “severe diabetic retinopathy and micro aneurysms, ” and, on March 10, 2010, he began reporting medical issues that included vision problems. Id. at PageID #: 156. Plaintiff alleges, however, that Rodriguez did not see an eye specialist until May 19, 2010, and that he did not receive eye surgery until November 23, 2010 and December 9, 2010. Id. at PageID #: 156. Moreover, Plaintiff alleges that issues related to Rodriguez's kidneys went undiscovered and untreated until Rodriguez went to St. Elizabeth's Hospital after being found unresponsive. Id. at PageID #: 156. Plaintiff further alleges that Defendants failed to provide Rodriguez with diabetic meals and snacks. Id.

         Plaintiff alleges that the Immigrations Customs Enforcement officers that transported Rodriguez back to Mexico at the end of his sentence received the following special instruction: “27 year old Hispanic male with unstable blood sugars, kidney failure, high blood pressure, visual impairment, and infectious diarrhea, along with facial and leg/fell swelling.” Id. at PageID #: 157.

         Rodriguez died on July 4, 2014. Id. Plaintiff alleges that, while incarcerated, Rodriguez only received blood glucose checks two times a day, even though the discharge papers from St. Elizabeth's Hospital ordered five blood glucose checks a day. Id. Plaintiff alleges that twice-a-day-monitoring and the failure to provide him with a glucometer violated the Bureau of Prisons' suggested procedure of three checks a day, plus self-monitoring through a glucometer. Id. at PageID #: 157-58.

         Plaintiff alleges that the Bureau of Prisons ended its contract with CoreCivic at NEOCC in late 2014. Id. at PageID #: 160. Plaintiff further alleges that this came after the American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio urged the Bureau of Prisons to end the contract due to inadequacies in the health care inmates received at NEOCC. Id. This purported lack of medical care served as one of the reasons the Bureau of Prisons ended its contract with CoreCivic. Id.

         II. Legal Standard

         To survive a Fed. R. Civ. P.12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the plaintiff's complaint must allege enough facts to “raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Ass'n of Cleveland Fire Fighters v. City of Cleveland, Ohio, 502 F.3d 545, 548 (6th Cir. 2007) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2) requires only that a pleading contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” However, “a plaintiff's obligation to provide the ‘grounds' of his ‘entitle[ment] to relief' requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (citing Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286 (1986)). A complaint requires “further factual enhancement, ” which “state[s] a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. at 557, 570. A claim has facial plausibility when there is enough factual content present to 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). When a claim lacks “plausibility in th[e] complaint, ” that cause of action fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Twombly, U.S. 550 at 564.

         When ruling on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, a court may consider “documents incorporated into the complaint by reference, and matters of which a court may take judicial notice.” Solo v. United Parcel Serv. Co., 819 F.3d 788, 794 (6th Cir. 2016) (quoting Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd., 551 U.S. 308, 322 (2007)).

         III. Discussion

         Defendants seek dismissal of Count II of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint on two grounds: (1) that the statute of limitations bars the claim and (2) that Plaintiff has failed to allege facts to show Defendants ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.