Civil Rights: Incapacitated man sues over treatment by law enforcement officers

Where the plaintiff alleged that he was denied treatment for more than 30 hours, after he suffered a stroke that law enforcement officers concluded was intoxication, most of his claims survived the motion to dismiss.

Background

William Heim was involved in a highway accident after suffering a stroke. It was concluded by a police officer that he was intoxicated, and he was arrested and jailed. He alleges that jail employees failed to seek medical care for him, even though he continued to show the effects of the stroke. He claims that when he finally did receive medical care, some 30 hours later, he was not a candidate for treatment that would have prevented the permanent and extensive consequences he suffers from the stroke. All but one of the defendants now move to dismiss the complaint.

Deliberate indifference

            The defendants argue that Heim failed to demonstrate that they knew or should have known he had a serious medical condition requiring immediate treatment before defendant Jenny Bain’s call with Heim’s sister, Angela Strater. The court disagrees.

Heim was arrested under suspicion of DUI following a motor vehicle accident, but officer Zachary Puckett searched his truck and found no alcohol, drugs or drug paraphernalia. His preliminary breath test result was only 0.01, but his symptoms continued through defendant Jenny Bain’s eventual referral to medical services 30 hours later.

His disorientation and incontinence continued the entire time he was at the jail, despite that he had a negative drug screen. All of the correctional officers performed rounds and signed logs stating that they observed Heim in his cell. Clearly, at least one of those officers – Bain – managed to notice in the process that Heim was behaving strangely, because Bain asked Heim’s sister, Angela Strater, if that behavior was typical for him.

Qualified immunity

            To determine whether a complaint should survive a qualified immunity-based motion to dismiss, courts follow the two-prong inquiry set forth by the Supreme Court. Under the first prong, the court considers whether the facts alleged by the plaintiff establish that the defendants violated a constitutional right. Under the second prong, the court determines “whether the right at issue was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the [defendants’] conduct.”

Here, the complaint has plausibly alleged a constitutional violation involving deliberate indifference under § 1983, as explained above. Moreover, by the date of these events, caselaw had clearly established that the Fourteenth Amendment protected “a pretrial detainee’s right to adequate medical care and freedom from deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs.”

Supervisory liability

Heim brings a supervisory liability claim against jail superintendent Kimberly Haug. The main allegation that Heim makes supporting this claim is that Bain told Strater over the phone that they had no medical assistance at the jail and there was no one there who could help him. He argues that “[t]hese statements suggest a widespread pattern and practice of personnel not obtaining care for detainees with serious medical needs.”

But the deliberate indifference required in a supervisory liability claim is a high bar. It may be shown “by demonstrating a supervisor’s continued inaction in the face of documented widespread abuses.” While troubling, Heim’s alleged experience at the jail and Bain’s comments to his sister do not on their own establish documented or widespread abuses, or Haug’s continued inaction.

Monell

            As with the supervisory liability claim, Heim supports his Monell claim by alleging that Bain’s statements in her phone call with Strater demonstrate the necessary official policy. He also again relies on the behavior of the defendants in their delay in obtaining medical care for him. But further details are required to demonstrate the jail authority had a policy of not providing inmates with medical care for serious conditions and that this policy was the “moving force” behind his injuries. This count is dismissed without prejudice.

State claims

The defendants argue that the state law claims for gross negligence and vicarious liability are barred by the one-year statute of limitations. Heim argues that Virginia tolls the statute of limitations for a person who becomes incapacitated for as long as they are incapacitated, unless a conservator or guardian is appointed.

Because the complaint contains a factual allegation plausibly suggesting that Heim was incapacitated within the prescribed limitation period, it is not appropriate to dismiss the state law claims for untimeliness at this point. The court also finds that the complaint plausibly pleads claims for gross negligence and vicarious liability for gross negligence.

Defendants’ motion to dismiss granted in part, denied in part.

Heim v. Puckett, Case No. 1:25-cv-00004, July 30, 2025. WDVA at Abingdon (Jones). VLW 025-3-310. 20 pp.