Plaintiff Danovan Maurice Pooler, who had recently undergone surgery for a gunshot wound, alleged that Officer Mire refused to uncuff him or allow him to use the restroom for approximately three and a half hours at Oregon Health & Science University. The complaint states that Pooler defecated on himself in his bed because he could not be moved, and that Mire subsequently refused nursing staff requests to allow Pooler to clean his surgical wound.
When Pooler was discharged from the hospital on June 2, 2024, Mire ordered him to exit his bed without assistance despite his recent surgery. Pooler alleges he was forced to walk barefoot in a hospital gown across a gravelly parking lot and street to reach Mire’s police vehicle. During this walk, Pooler stepped on a sharp rock that broke the skin on his heel and allegedly caused his surgical wound to tear.
Pooler’s amended complaint asserts two claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of his Fourteenth Amendment rights, alongside state-law claims for negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The court found that Pooler sufficiently alleged that Mire made intentional decisions regarding his confinement conditions, placed him at substantial risk of serious harm, and failed to take reasonable available measures to abate those risks.
Regarding the deliberate indifference claim, the court noted that Pooler alleged Mire refused to provide a wheelchair or gripped socks despite pleas from OHSU doctors and nurses. The court rejected the defendants’ argument that the hospital, rather than Mire, was responsible for Pooler’s care, citing allegations that Mire prevented medical staff from providing accommodations.
On the theory of intended punishment, the court held that Pooler plausibly alleged Mire acted with an intent to punish by denying basic hygiene and mobility aids. The court found the defendants failed to explain how denying bathroom access for hours or refusing a wheelchair was rationally related to a legitimate nonpunitive governmental purpose, particularly given that other officers had previously allowed Pooler reasonable access to nursing staff.
The court also denied Mire’s claim to qualified immunity at this stage, determining that the complaint contained sufficient allegations of a harmful act violating clearly established constitutional rights. The court cited Ninth Circuit precedent holding that denial of bathroom access violates inmate rights, noting that pretrial detainees retain at least those constitutional rights enjoyed by convicted prisoners.
Finally, the court denied the motion to dismiss the state-law tort claims. It ruled that Pooler satisfied the Oregon Tort Claims Act notice requirement by commencing the action within 180 days of the alleged injuries. The court further held that the negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims could proceed at the initial pleading stage even if based on the same facts as the federal claims.