Adc v. Jones
| Decision Date | 24 January 2019 |
| Docket Number | 2:18-cv-00008-DPM-JJV |
| Parties | GREGORY M. WILSON ADC #162142 PLAINTIFF v. JONNIE JONES, Administrator, St. Francis County Jail; et al. DEFENDANTS |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Arkansas |
The following recommended disposition has been sent to United States District Judge D. P. Marshall Jr. Any party may serve and file written objections to this recommendation. Objections should be specific and should include the factual or legal basis for the objection. If the objection is to a factual finding, specifically identify that finding and the evidence that supports your objection. An original and one copy of your objections must be received in the office of the United States District Court Clerk no later than fourteen (14) days from the date of the findings and recommendations. The copy will be furnished to the opposing party. Failure to file timely objections may result in waiver of the right to appeal questions of fact.
If you are objecting to the recommendation and also desire to submit new, different, or additional evidence, and to have a hearing for this purpose before the District Judge, you must, at the same time that you file your written objections, include the following:
1. Why the record made before the Magistrate Judge is inadequate.
2. Why the evidence proffered at the hearing (if such a hearing is granted) was not offered at the hearing before the Magistrate Judge.
3. The details of any testimony desired to be introduced at the new hearing in the form of an offer of proof, and a copy, or the original, of any documentary or other non-testimonial evidence desired to be introduced at the new hearing.
From this submission, the District Judge will determine the necessity for an additional evidentiary hearing. Mail your objections and "Statement of Necessity" to:
Clerk, United States District Court
Eastern District of Arkansas
600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite A149
Little Rock, AR 72201-3325
Gregory M. Wilson ("Plaintiff") is a prisoner in the Arkansas Department of Correction ("ADC"). He has filed this pro se action, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that while he was in the St. Francis County Jail, Defendants Jail Administrator Jonnie Jones, Jailer Marty Watlington, and Jailer Otis Smith failed to provide him with constitutionally adequate medical care for anxiety and chronic pain. (Doc. No. 10.) He is proceeding with this claim against Defendants in their individual capacities only.1 (Id., Doc. No. 21.)
Defendants have filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, contending they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law. (Doc. Nos. 36-38.) Plaintiff has not filed a Response, and the time to do so has expired. Thus, the matter is now ripe for a decision. After careful review, and for the following reasons, I find Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment should be DENIED, andI recommend Plaintiff be allowed to proceed to trial on his inadequate medical care claim against Defendants in their individual capacities.
Under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, summary judgment is proper "if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). A party asserting that a fact cannot be or is genuinely disputed must support the assertion by citing to particular parts of materials in the record, "including depositions, documents, electronically stored information, affidavits or declarations, stipulations (including those made for purposes of the motion only), admissions, interrogatory answers, or other materials[.]" Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(A).
When ruling on a motion for summary judgment, the court must view the evidence in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Naucke v. City of Park Hills, 284 F.3d 923, 927 (8th Cir. 2002). The nonmoving party may not rely on allegations or denials, but must demonstrate the existence of specific facts that create a genuine issue for trial. Mann v. Yarnell, 497 F.3d 822, 825 (8th Cir. 2007). The nonmoving party's allegations must be supported by sufficient probative evidence that would permit a finding in his favor on more than mere speculation, conjecture, or fantasy. Id. (citations omitted). A dispute is genuine if the evidence is such that it could cause a reasonable jury to return a verdict for either party; a fact is material if its resolution affects the outcome of the case. Othman v. City of Country Club Hills, 671 F.3d 672, 675 (8th Cir. 2012). Disputes that are not genuine or that are about facts that are not material will not preclude summary judgment. Sitzes v. City of West Memphis, Ark., 606 F.3d 461, 465 (8th Cir. 2010).
The facts viewed in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, and taken mostly from his medicalrecords and deposition, are as follows. (Doc. Nos. 38-3; 38-7; 38-8). Plaintiff was booked into the St. Francis County Jail on October 30, 2017. (Id.) He had with him hydrocodone and cyclobenzaprine, which his family doctor had prescribed to treat chronic back and neck pain caused by degenerative disc disease and a herniated disc, and clonazepam for the treatment of anxiety. (Doc. Nos. 38-3; 38-7 at 23-33.) All three medications were supposed to be taken three times a day. (Id.) Plaintiff's family brought refills of these medications to the St. Francis County Jail until sometime near the end of November or early December, when the prescriptions expired. (Id. at 38-7 at 43.) Plaintiff claims jailers only gave him the medications twice a day, and that, on a few occasions, jailers forged his signature on the medical log indicating that Plaintiff had received his medications when he had not.2 (Id. at 46, 74-77.)
On December 6, 2017, Defendant Smith took Plaintiff to Dr. Michel (not Plaintiff's family doctor), who diagnosed Plaintiff as having generalized anxiety disorder, muscle spasms in his lower back, and "lumbago due to displacement of intervertebral discs" (Doc. Nos. 38-3; 38-7 at 99; 38-8.) Dr. Michel renewed Plaintiff's prescription for cyclobenzaprine and clonazepam, changed hydrocodone to gabapentin for the treatment of "severe back pain," and instructed that all three medications be taken three times a day. (Doc. No. 38-3; 38-8.) For unknown reasons, only the cyclobenzaprine (which is a muscle relaxer) prescription was filled. (Doc. No. 38-3 at 5-7, 13-16.)
For the remainder of his incarceration at the St. Francis County Jail, Plaintiff received cyclobenzaprine only twice a day, and he did not receive gabapentin for pain or clonazepam for anxiety at all. (Doc. No. 38-3 at 13-16; 38-7 at 46, 80-92.) Plaintiff alleges this caused him toexperience mood problems, headaches, pain, difficulty sleeping, and high blood pressure. (Doc No. 38-7 at 81-84, 92.) Plaintiff's family members periodically brought over-the-counter pain medications to the jail to help with these symptoms. (Doc. Nos. 38-3; 38-7 at 41, 81-85.) Plaintiff claims that, on several occasions, he complained to Defendants Jones, Watlington, and Smith about his missed medications and the adverse side effects he was experiencing. (Doc. No. 38-7 at 46-49, 55-64, 78-79, 100-01.) Defendants allegedly told Plaintiff they would "look into it," but they did not correct the problem or give him forms to raise the matter in the jail grievance procedure.3 (Id.) On January 19, 2018, Plaintiff was transported from the St. Francis County Jail to the ADC. (Doc. No. 38-1.)
Defendants argue they are entitled to qualified immunity from Plaintiff's inadequate medical care claim. Qualified immunity protects government officials who acted in an objectively reasonable manner and shields an official from liability when his or her conduct does not violate "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982). Qualified immunity is a question of law, not a question of fact. McClendon v. Story Cty. Sheriff's Office, 403 F.3d 510, 515 (8th Cir. 2005). Thus, issues concerning qualified immunity are appropriately resolved on summary judgment. See Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526 (1985) ().
Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity if: (1) the facts, viewed in the light mostfavorable to the plaintiff, do not establish a violation of a constitutional right; or (2) the constitutional right was not clearly established at the time of the alleged violation, such that a reasonable official would not have known that his or her actions were unlawful. Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 232 (2009); Cullor v. Baldwin, 830 F.3d 830, 836 (8th Cir. 2016). Courts may "exercise their sound discretion in deciding which of the two prongs of the qualified immunity analysis should be addressed first in light of the circumstances in the particular case at hand." Pearson, 555 U.S. at 232; Nelson v. Corr. Med. Servs, 583 F.3d 522, 528 (8th Cir. 2009).
The Constitution requires correctional officers to provide inmates and detainees with needed medical care.4 A.H. v. St. Louis, MO., 891 F.3d 721, 726 (8th Cir. 2018); Cullor, 830 F.3d at 836. To defeat qualified immunity and to proceed to trial on an inadequate medical care claim, Plaintiff must have evidence that: (1) he had an objectively serious need for medical care for chronic pain and anxiety; and (2) Defendants Jones, Watlington, and Smith subjectively knew of, but deliberately disregarded, that serious medical need. See Saylor v. Nebraska, 812 F.3d 637, 644 (8th Cir. 2016); Langford v. Norris, 614 F.3d 445, 460 (8th Cir. 2010). Because Defendants do not challenge the first element, the second element is the crux of this case. (...
To continue reading
Request your trial