Copenhaver v. Gardner

• Decision Date: 21 November 2012
• Docket Number: No. C11-0046-LRR,C11-0046-LRR
• Parties: RANDY MITCHELL COPENHAVER, Plaintiff, v. BRIAN GARDNER, MICHAEL J. CARR, ROBERT BRAKSIEK, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa

RANDY MITCHELL COPENHAVER, Plaintiff,

v.BRIAN GARDNER, MICHAEL J. CARR, ROBERT BRAKSIEK, Defendants.

No. C11-0046-LRR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA CEDAR RAPIDS DIVISION

Dated: November 21, 2012

ORDER

I. INTRODUCTION

The matter before the court is the plaintiff's complaint (docket no. 5), which was filed by the clerk's office on June 30, 2011. In his complaint, the plaintiff stated:

Brian Gardner allowed Michael J. Carr [who] allowed Dr. Robert J. Braksiek to disregard [and deny] me medical treatment from 2-13-2010 till present 4-11-11 for bilateral uncinate spurs, broad-based disc bulges, mild to moderate bilateral foraminal stenosis, degenerative disc disease, chronic back pain, herniated discs, severe carpal tunnel syndrome, deviated septum and chronic elbow pain. For all my pain, I've received ibuprofen 2 x a day for 14 months. I have filled out inmate request forms, grievances, contacted citizen's aid/ombudsman to no avail. I've been denied. They told [the] ombudsman they are getting me help since I've contacted them, and they didn't. Since then, I told them I was filing a 1983 civil [action] and on 3-11-2011, over 13 months later, I was given an MRI, and, to this date 4-11-2011, nothing has changed. I've been forced to sit on steel and concrete for 15 ½ [hours] a day every day from 7:00 a.m. to 10:30 p.m. My exam diagnosis: increased pain. I am in pain all the time with no relief or a [mattress] to sit on.

In light of such complaint and the parties' subsequent filings, the court deems it appropriate to determine whether dismissal is appropriate or whether it is appropriate to set this matter for trial.

II. APPLICABLE STANDARD

There are disadvantages associated with the grant of in forma pauperis status under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Namely, the court is required to dismiss at any time a plaintiff's action if it is frivolous or malicious or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) (specifying grounds that authorize dismissal); see also Moore v. Sims, 200 F.3d 1170, 1171 (8th Cir. 2000) (setting forth standard under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)). It is well-established that a prisoner's meritless case must be dismissed in an effort to preserve scarce judicial resources and to deter baseless, frivolous and malicious claims. See Christiansen v. Clarke, 147 F.3d 655, 658 (8th Cir. 1998) (emphasizing that, by allowing district courts to dismiss all meritless suits at any time and without giving leave to amend, 28 U.S.C. § 1915 reduces the burdens on the judicial system and increases the cost to prisoners who elect to pursue such suits).

A claim is "frivolous" if it "lacks an arguable basis in law or in fact." Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325, 109 S. Ct. 1827, 104 L. Ed. 2d 338 (1989); accord Cokeley v. Endell, 27 F.3d 331, 332 (8th Cir. 1994). An action fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted if it does not plead "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 167 L. Ed. 2d 929 (2007). Thus, the court is required to dismiss claims that fail "'to raise a right to relief above the speculative level. . . see Parkhurst v. Tabor, 569 F.3d 861, 865 (8th Cir. 2009) (quoting Bell Atl., 550 U.S. at 555), or that are premised on meritless legal theories or clearly lack any factual basis, see Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 325. See, e.g., Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. at 27 (considering frivolousness); Myers v. Vogal, 960 F.2d 750, 751 (8th Cir. 1992) (concluding that a district court may dismiss an action if an affirmative defense exists).

III. RELEVANT BACKGROUND

After the plaintiff submitted his complaint, the court entered several orders. In those orders, the court addressed several issues and repeatedly determined that the record did not justify the appointment of counsel. Ultimately, as ordered by the court, the defendants filed an answer (docket no. 15) on December 20, 2011.¹ In their answer, the defendants denied the plaintiff's assertion that he had not litigated the same facts in another court, and they declared that the Iowa District Court for Linn County decided the plaintiff's claims against him. They also asserted several affirmative defenses.

On March 12, 2012, the plaintiff filed a notice (docket no. 20). Pursuant to such notice, the plaintiff advised the court that, although he tried to obtain a job, he did not have the means to make payments on an installment basis. He also attached to such filing, an authorization to release his medical information, responses to the defendants' request for production of documents and his responses to the defendants' request for admission, presumably pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36. With regard to the request for admission, the plaintiff answered multiple questions. Specifically, the plaintiff admitted the following: (1) on March 4, 2011, he filed a motion for proper medical care in the Iowa District Court for Linn County; (2) on March 23, 2011, Judge Sean W. McPartland conducted a hearing with respect to the motion for proper medical care; (3) on April 4, 2011, Judge McPartland ruled on the motion for proper medical care; (4) he neither requested medical care from Brian Gardner nor discussed medical care with Brian Gardner; (5) he sustained an elbow injury as a result of slipping and falling on snow prior to his placement in the Linn County Correctional Center; (6) his elbow injury is not an emergency or a life-threatening condition; (7) in 2004 and while serving time in a federalprison, medical personnel diagnosed him as having herniated disks; and (8) he suffered a deviated septum as a result of a fight that occurred eight or nine years ago. But, the plaintiff indicated that he asked his criminal defense attorney to appeal Judge McPartland's ruling and denied that he knew the outcome of his motion for proper medical care prior to April 12, 2011, that is, the date that he signed his complaint. He also disputed the defendants' assertions that: (1) he did not ask Michael Carr for medical care or discuss his medical care with him, (2) Robert Braksiek is an independent contractor and is not an employee of or supervised by either Brian Gardner or Michael Carr, (3) he is overweight by 120 pounds and (4) his herniated disks, deviated septum and carpal tunnel do not present an emergency or a life-threatening condition.

After the plaintiff filed his notice, the court entered a scheduling order. The parties essentially ignored all of the deadlines that the court established. Nevertheless, on October 2, 2012, the court permitted the parties to submit a written narrative, a list of exhibits and a list of the names and addresses of all of the witnesses that they intended to call (docket no. 25). On October 15, 2012, the plaintiff filed his narrative, a list of exhibits and a list of witnesses (docket no. 29). On October 24, 2012, the defendants filed their narrative, a list of exhibits and a list of witnesses (docket no. 30).

Concerning the plaintiff's October 15, 2012 filing, the plaintiff offers, among other things, the following: (1) statements, (2) kites and grievances, (3) letters to and from Citizens' Aide/Ombudsman, (4) the March 4, 2011 motion for proper medical care and the April 4, 2011 ruling, (5) medical reports, (6) letters from the Iowa Board of Medicine, (7) an inmate incident report and notice of violation, (8) correspondence that pertains to efforts undertaken by his criminal defense attorney to obtain medical information from Mercy Hospital and the University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, (9) a letter regarding the cost for copying medical records from the Linn County Correctional Center, (10) bills for medical services performed by Mercy Hospital, Linn County Emergency Medicine, Radiology Consultants of Iowa and the University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics and (11)the request for admission, request for production of documents and propounded interrogatories. He also indicated that he wanted to call as witnesses his criminal defense attorney, two deputies and the doctors that tested him for carpel tunnel in 2006 and 2011 and that, although he does not have them, he would like to rely on his medical records from the Linn County Correctional Center, the University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, the Iowa Medical and Classification Center, the Anamosa State Penitentiary and Mercy Hospital located in Cedar Rapids.

Given the plaintiff's filings on March 12, 2012 and October 15, 2012, the facts are as follows:

In January of 2005, the plaintiff was arrested. At that time, the plaintiff had herniated discs in his back and, as a result, pain. From January 21, 2005 to the time that he went to federal prison almost a year later, medical provided him a bottom bunk with a mattress to ease his pain. While in federal prison, the plaintiff received an MRI that confirmed he had herniated discs on his left and right sides. In 2006, the plaintiff went to the University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics to remove a tumor and to be tested for carpel tunnel. After performing tests, doctors determined that the plaintiff had carpel tunnel and provided him with braces for both of his hands. The plaintiff has been instructed to wear those braces while he sleeps.

On February 12, 2010, the plaintiff was arrested again. Medical confirmed that it had his medical file from federal prison and placed him in a 4-E Dorm. He informed medical that, just before his arrest, he had slipped and fallen on his right elbow and that he needed medical attention. At that time, he was 6 feet and 3 ½ inches tall and weighed either 328 pounds or 329 pounds. The plaintiff told medical that, when he fell, it felt like someone hit him on the elbow with a hammer. Also, in February of 2010, he told Dr. Braksiek that he had injured his elbow, had a bad back, had a deviated septum, had anxiety disorder and had carpel tunnel. When he saw

...