Collins v. Bernedette

• Docket Number: Civil Action 2:22-01391-RMG-MGB
• Decision Date: 10 October 2023
• Parties: Robbie Collins, Plaintiff, v. Samantha Bernedette,[1]et. al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of South Carolina

1

Robbie Collins, Plaintiff, v. Samantha Bernedette,^[1]et. al., Defendants.

Civil Action No. 2:22-01391-RMG-MGB

United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Charleston Division

October 10, 2023

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

MARY GORDON BAKER UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff a state prisoner appearing pro se and in forma pauperis, brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging Defendants were deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff's serious medical needs by “refus[ing] to fully vaccinate” Plaintiff when he was already suffering from “postCOVID complications” and he “caught COVID again” as a result. (Dkt. Nos. 1 at 6; 1-1 at 2.) Currently before the Court is a Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendants Associate Warden Turner and Grant Morris (Dkt. No. 91), and Plaintiff's Motions for a Temporary Restraining Order (Dkt. Nos. 110; 111). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1) and Local Rule 73.02(B)(2)(e), D.S.C., all pretrial matters in cases involving pro se litigants are referred to a United States Magistrate Judge. For the reasons set forth herein the undersigned recommends granting Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and denying Plaintiff's Motions for a Temporary Restraining Order.

BACKGROUND

In this civil action, Plaintiff alleges deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. (Dkt. No. 1; Dkt. No. 17.) Plaintiff alleges that he was transferred to McCormick Correctional Institution (“McCormick”) in May 2021 for treatment of “post-Covid complications which cause me to have severe respiratory attacks.” (Dkt. No. 1-1 at 1.) Plaintiff alleges that “McCormick offered the yard the Johnson & Johnson vaccination on or about July 2021.” (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that when he explained to a “Covid nurse” that he had a family history of blood clots, the nurse arranged for him to receive the Moderna vaccine for the prevention of COVID-19 “which was a two-shot treatment.” (Id.) “Later that day,” Defendant Nurse Grant Morris “came to the dorm and told [Plaintiff] he was giving [Plaintiff his] first dose of the Moderna vaccination and he would come give [Plaintiff his] second dose in a few days.” (Id.) According to Plaintiff, after months passed without the second dose, he complained to Defendant Head Nurse Samantha Burdette. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges he told Nurse Burdette that he “had post-Covid symptoms and wanted to be fully vaccinated because [he] had asthma,” and that he had received his first dose of the vaccine over a month ago. (Id.) After Nurse Burdette responded that “she would look into it,” Plaintiff complained to Defendant Associate Warden Turner that he “was being denied full vaccination.” (Id.) Plaintiff alleges Turner “said she would contact medical.” (Id.)

Plaintiff alleges he then learned that McCormick officials claimed “there was no record of Plaintiff receiving a COVID-19 vaccination[,] that Plaintiff arrived after the COVID-19 shot was administered,” and that Plaintiff “would be vaccinated by September 21, 2021.” (Id. at 2.) Here, Plaintiff is referring to a brief filed in his prior lawsuit, Collins v. Belzer, Case No. 2:20-cv-03752-RMG-MGB. Specifically, in a brief filed on August 27, 2021, the defendants stated in response to Plaintiff's Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order,^[2]

[A]fter a review of Plaintiff's medical records and discussions with medical employees at McCormick, there is no record of Plaintiff receiving any type of COVID-19 vaccine while at McCormick as he arrived after COVID-19 has been administered to the inmate population at McCormick. If Plaintiff wishes to receive a COVID-19 vaccine, he needs to send a Request to Staff to medical requesting the vaccine. In any event, the Health Care Authority at McCormick has been made aware that Plaintiff is unvaccinated and he will be placed on the list to receive a vaccine in early September 2021.

(Case No. 2:20-cv-03752- RMG-MGB, Dkt. No. 75 at 4.)

Plaintiff alleges he “showed that [August 27, 2021] opposition to Nurse Samantha [Burdette] and Nurse Grant [Morris] asking them why they lied and what was in the shot [Morris] put into my body.” (Dkt. No. 1-1 at 2.) Plaintiff alleges he “continued to file grievances trying to make medical staff vaccinate me to help deal with the post-Covid complications and further protect me from other infections.” (Id.) According to Plaintiff, in February 2022, he “caught the Corona Virus again and went through weeks of body aches, labored breathing, and chest pains.” (Id.) Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff alleges Defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. He asks for compensatory and punitive damages. (Dkt. Nos. 1 at 6; 17 at 3.)

On April 10, 2023, Defendants Associate Warden Turner and Grant Morris filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. (Dkt. No. 91.) On April 11, 2023, this Court issued an Order pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975), advising Plaintiff of the dismissal procedure and the possible consequences if he failed to adequately respond to the motion. (Dkt. No. 93.) Plaintiff filed a response in opposition on April 25, 2023 (Dkt. No. 101), to which Defendants replied on May 2, 2023 (Dkt. No. 103). Plaintiff filed a sur-reply on June 2, 2023. (Dkt. No. 108.) The Motion has been fully briefed and is ripe for review. Notably, Defendants have not sought dismissal of Plaintiff's claims against Defendant Samantha Burdette. Accordingly, Plaintiff's claims against her will proceed to trial.

Also, after Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment was fully briefed, Plaintiff filed two documents titled “TRO,” which the undersigned has liberally construed as motions seeking a temporary restraining order. (Dkt. Nos. 110; 111). Defendants filed responses in opposition (Dkt. Nos. 113; 115), and Plaintiff filed a reply brief (Dkt. No. 126).

LEGAL STANDARD

DISCUSSION

I. Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 91)

In their Motion, Defendants only seek dismissal of the claims against “Associate Warden Turner, who had no involvement with Plaintiff's medical treatment, and Defendant Grant Morris, LPN, who administered one of Plaintiff's COVID vaccinations and then left the employment of SCDC on August 13, 2021 before Plaintiff was to be placed on the vaccination list in September 2021.” (Dkt. No. 91-1 at 2.) Referencing the statements made in Plaintiff's prior lawsuit, Defendants acknowledge that “there is no evidence that Plaintiff received his vaccination in September 2021” and assert that this case centers “on Plaintiff's failure to receive a COVID-19 booster vaccine.” (Dkt. No. 91-1 at 2.) Defendants further state, “it was only after additional investigation that Defendants located the COVID-19 vaccine consent form indicating that Plaintiff received his initial Moderna vaccine on May 14, 2023.” (Dkt. No. 103 at 2.)

Based on the foregoing, the issue before the Court is whether there is a genuine dispute of material fact indicating Defendant Morris, a medical professional, and Defendant Turner, a nonmedical prison official, were deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff's serious medical needs under § 1983. Before analyzing the merits of these claims, the undersigned first sets forth the relevant legal standards.

A. Standards

1. Summary Judgment

Pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, summary judgment shall be granted “if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). “Facts are ‘material' when they might affect the outcome of the case, and a ‘genuine issue' exists when the evidence would allow a reasonable jury to return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” News & Observer Pub'g Co. v. Raleigh-Durham Airport Auth., 597 F.3d 570, 576 (4th Cir. 2010) (citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986)). When a court considers the motion, “‘the nonmoving party's evidence is to be believed, and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in that party's favor.'” Id. (quoting Hunt v. Cromartie, 526 U.S. 541, 552 (1999)); see also Perini Corp. v. Perini Constr., Inc., 915 F.2d 121, 123-24 (4th Cir. 1990).

Because Plaintiff is representing himself, these standards must be applied while liberally construing his filings in this case. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007).

2. Deliberate Indifference to Serious Medical Needs

To establish a cognizable Eighth Amendment claim for denial of medical care, a plaintiff must put forth facts sufficient to demonstrate that an official was deliberately indifferent to a serious medical need. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 105 (1976); Pfaller v. Amonette, 55 F.4th 436, 445 (4th Cir. 2022). A deliberate indifference claim has both an objective and subjective component. Gordon v. Schilling, 937 F.3d 348, 356 (4th Cir. 2019). “That is, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant prison official acted with ‘deliberate indifference' (the subjective component) to the plaintiff's ‘serious medical needs' (the objective component).” Id. (citing Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976)).

A medical condition is serious enough to satisfy the objective component if it has “been diagnosed by a physician as mandating treatment or is so obvious that even a lay person would easily recognize the necessity for a doctor's attention.” Id. (citing Scinto v. Stansberry, 841 F.3d 219, 225 (4th Cir. 2016)). The subjective component has two subparts: “a plaintiff must show the prison official (1) had actual knowledge of the risk of harm to the inmate and (2) recognized that his actions were insufficient to mitigate the risk of harm to the inmate arising from his medical needs.” Pfaller, 55 F.4th at 445 (citing Iko v. Shreve, 535 F.3d 225, 241 (4th Cir. 200...