Trammell v. Montgomery County et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON
ESTATE OF ISAIAH TRAMMELL,
by Administrator William M.
Harrelson II,
Plaintiff, 	Case No. 3:25-cv-86
vs.
MONTGOMERY COUNTY, et al., 	District Judge Michael J. Newman
Magistrate Judge Caroline H. Gentry
Defendants.
______________________________________________________________________________
ORDER: (1) GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART THE MONTGOMERY
COUNTY DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS (Doc. No. 21); (2) DISMISSING
PLAINTIFF’S WRONGFUL DEATH CLAIM AND SURVIVORSHIP CLAIM AGAINST
THE MONTGOMERY COUNTY DEFENDANTS ONLY; (3) DENYING THE
NAPHCARE DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS (Doc. No. 19); AND (4)
CONFIRMING THAT DEFENDANTS JOSEPH SOLOMON; BRIAN GODSEY;
MICHAEL BITTINGER; CONNOR BLUM; DANIEL J. CHOI; CHRISTOPHER L.
JONES; A. LITTLEJOHN; AND ADELINA OSWEILER DID NOT FILE DISPOSITIVE
MOTIONS AND REMAIN IN THIS CASE SUBJECT TO ALL THE CLAIMS THAT
PLAINTIFF HAS ALLEGED AGAINST THEM IN HIS AMENDED COMPLAINT
______________________________________________________________________________
This civil case concerns the death of Isaiah Trammell (“Mr. Trammell”), who unfortunately
passed away in the custody of the Montgomery County, Ohio Jail. Doc. No. 7. Plaintiff William
M. Harrelson II, the administer of Mr. Trammell’s estate, brings federal constitutional claims,
under to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and multiple state-law claims. 	Id. at PageID 87-102. 	This case is
before the Court upon two motions to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 (b)(6). The first of
these motions is filed by the Defendants NaphCare, Inc.; Brittanie Holzfaster; Cassie Kirkpatrick
Smith; and Patrick Redman (collectively the “NaphCare Defendants”). Doc. No. 19. Defendants
Montgomery County and Montgomery County Board of County Commissioners (collectively the
“Montgomery County Defendants”) likewise move to dismiss this case. Doc. No. 21. Plaintiff,
Case: 3:25-cv-00086-MJN-CHG Doc #: 29 Filed: 03/05/26 Page: 1 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>

2
through counsel, has filed memoranda in response to both dispositive motions. Doc. Nos. 23, 24.
The NaphCare Defendants and the Montgomery County Defendants both filed reply memoranda.
Doc. Nos. 27, 28. Thus, the motions are ripe for review.
I.
At the motion to dismiss stage, “all well-pleaded material allegations of the pleadings of
the opposing party must be taken as true, and the motion may be granted only if the moving party
is nevertheless clearly entitled to judgment.” JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Winget, 510 F.3d
577, 581 (6th Cir. 2007) (quotation omitted). 	The Court “construe[s] the complaint in the light
most favorable to the plaintiff, accept[s] its allegations as true, and draw[s] all reasonable
inferences in favor of the plaintiff.” Royal Truck & Trailer Sales & Serv., Inc. v. Kraft, 974 F.3d
756, 758 (6th Cir. 2020) (quoting Jones v. City of Cincinnati, 521 F.3d 555, 559 (6th Cir. 2008)).
However, the Court “need not accept as true legal conclusions or unwarranted factual inferences.”
Winget, 510 F.3d at 582–83 (citation omitted) (quotation omitted).
A complaint will not suffice if it offers only “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic
recitation of the elements of a cause of action.” 	Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)
(quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). 	Instead, “a complaint must
contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face.’” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). A plaintiff must plead “factual content that allows
the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”
Id. 	“Where a complaint pleads facts that are ‘merely consistent with’ a defendant’s liability, it
‘stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility of “entitlement to relief.”’” Id. (quoting
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557).
Case: 3:25-cv-00086-MJN-CHG Doc #: 29 Filed: 03/05/26 Page: 2 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>

3
Rule 12(b)(6), like all other Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “should be construed,
administered, and employed by the court and the parties to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive
determination of every action and proceeding.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 1.
II.
A preliminary matter merits mention. 	In his memorandum in opposition to the
Montgomery County Defendants’ motion to dismiss, Plaintiff concedes dismissal of his wrongful
death claim and survivorship claim against the Montgomery County Defendants. Doc. No. 23 at
PageID 240-41. Accordingly, the Court dismisses those state-law claims as to the Montgomery
County Defendants only.
III.
Next, having carefully and thoroughly considered the pleadings and briefing in support of,
and in opposition to, Defendants’ motions, along with the procedural posture of this case, the
efficient and appropriate way forward is to permit discovery to occur and consider the parties’
arguments on summary judgment, not earlier at the motion-to-dismiss phase of litigation. 	See,
e.g., Meriwether v. Hartop, 992 F.3d 492, 514 (6th Cir. 2021). 	Proceeding in this manner will
ensure that the Court reviews these arguments only after appropriate discovery has been completed
and will guarantee that the Court’s consideration of the parties’ arguments is not premature. 1 Id.;
cf. Humphreys v. Bank of Am., 557 F. App’x 416, 422 (6th Cir. 2014); Grose v. Caruso, 284 F.
App’x 279, 284 (6th Cir. 2008) (Gibbons, J., concurring); Nuchols v. Berrong, 141 F. App’x 451,
453 (6th Cir. 2005); LRL Prop. v. Portage Metro Hous. Auth., 55 F.3d 1097, 1113 (6th Cir. 1995)
(Jones, J., dissenting).
1 To that end, the Court notes that the parties did not address the issue of qualified immunity in the motions
to dismiss. See Myers v. City of Centerville, 41 F.4th 746, 758 (6th Cir. 2022).
Case: 3:25-cv-00086-MJN-CHG Doc #: 29 Filed: 03/05/26 Page: 3 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>

4
IV.
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART the Montgomery
County Defendants’ motion to dismiss. Doc. No. 21. The Court DISMISSES Plaintiff’s wrongful
death claim and survivorship claim against the Montgomery County Defendants only. All other
claims against the Montgomery County Defendants may proceed. Moreover, the Court DENIES
the NaphCare Defendants’ motion to dismiss. 	Doc. No. 19. 	Finally, the Court CLARIFIES
Defendants Joseph Solomon; Brian Godsey; Michael Bittinger; Connor Blum; Daniel J. Choi;
Christopher L. Jones; A. Littlejohn; and Adelina Osweiler did not file dispositive motions and
remain in this case subject to all the claims that Plaintiff has alleged against them in his amended
complaint.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
March 5, 2026 	s/Michael J. Newman
Hon. Michael J. Newman
United States District Judge
Case: 3:25-cv-00086-MJN-CHG Doc #: 29 Filed: 03/05/26 Page: 4 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>