United States District Court, M.D. Tennessee, Columbia Division
KEI'CHOURA M. CATHEY, Plaintiff,
MAURY COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, SHERIFF BUCKY ROWLAND, and MAURY COUNTY, TENNESSEE, Defendants.
BROWN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Kei'Choura M. Cathey brought this action against the
Maury County Sheriff's Department, Sheriff Bucky Rowland,
and Maury County, Tennessee, alleging she was subjected to
cruel and unusual punishment, deprived of a fundamental
right, and negligently subjected to emotional distress when
she was denied transportation and funding for an elective
abortion while in Defendants' custody. Before the Court
is Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. (Doc. 8). For the
following reasons, the Motion to Dismiss is
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
19, 2015, Plaintiff was arrested and placed into the
pre-trial custody of the Maury County Sheriff's
Department. (Doc. 1, p. 2 ¶ 6). Soon thereafter, she
discovered she was pregnant. (Id. ¶ 7). Through
counsel, on August 27, 2015, Plaintiff notified Sheriff
Rowland that she wished to terminate her pregnancy.
(Id. ¶ 8).
Rowland responded to Plaintiff's attorney on August 30,
2015. (Id. ¶ 9). The Sheriff explained that the
Sheriff's Department would not provide funding or
transportation to facilitate an abortion unless the procedure
was medically necessary to save the mother's life or the
pregnancy was the result of rape or incest. (Id.).
Plaintiff made two attempts to obtain a lower bond
requirement, she was unable to post bond until January 19,
2016. (Id. p. 3 ¶¶ 10-11). By that time,
Plaintiff could no longer legally obtain an elective
abortion. (Id. ¶ 12). She gave birth to a child
on April 6, 2016. (Id. ¶ 13).
commenced this suit on December 29, 2016. (Doc. 1). She
alleged Defendants' denial of access to an abortion
violated the Eighth Amendment's prohibition of cruel and
unusual punishment, deprived her of her fundamental right to
obtain an abortion under the Fourteenth Amendment, violated
her civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983,  and negligently
inflicted emotional distress. (Id. pp. 3-8
the consent of the parties, this case was transferred to the
undersigned to conduct all proceedings in this case,
including trial, the entry of final judgment, and all
post-trial proceedings. (Doc. 15).
pending is Defendants' fully briefed Motion to Dismiss
this suit for failure to state a claim upon which relief can
be granted. (Docs. 8-10, 13). Upon entry of an Agreed Order
of Voluntary Dismissal in Part with Prejudice, which
dismissed the Eighth Amendment claim, the Sheriff's
Department, and Sheriff Rowland from this suit, only two
claims remain. (Doc. 18). First, the Court must determine
whether Plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment claim against
Defendant Maury County is time-barred. Second, the Court must
decide whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over
Plaintiff's state-law claim for negligent infliction of
emotional distress against Defendant Maury County.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure imposes a
straightforward pleading standard. A complaint must contain a
short and plain statement of the court's jurisdiction, a
claim showing entitlement to relief, and the relief demanded.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a). Dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) is proper
where, even accepting the factual allegations as true, the
complaint fails to state a plausible claim for relief.
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009);
Luis v. Zang, 833 F.3d 619, 625-26 (6th Cir. 2016).
Though a motion to dismiss “is generally an
inappropriate vehicle for dismissing a claim based upon the
statute of limitations, ” dismissal is appropriate
where the untimeliness is apparent from the face of the
complaint. Cataldo v. U.S. Steel Corp., 676 F.3d
542, 547 (6th Cir. 2012) (citing Jones v. Bock, 549
U.S. 199, 215 (2007)).
Fourteenth Amendment Protection for Reproductive
Maury County argues it is entitled to dismissal of
Plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment claim because the count
is barred by the statute of ...