Delaughter v. Hatten
| Decision Date | 31 March 2022 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:14-cv-18-RHWR |
| Citation | 596 F.Supp.3d 652 |
| Parties | Thad Everett DELAUGHTER, Plaintiff v. Michael HATTEN, Gloria Perry, and Donald Faucett, Defendants |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Mississippi |
Christopher E. Smith, Grady Morgan Holder, Smith & Holder, PLLC, Gulfport, MS, for Plaintiff.
J. Chadwick Williams, Brittney S. Eakins, Elgin Kenneth Walley, II, Mississippi Attorney General's Office, Jackson, MS, Leonard Charlton Vincent, Mississippi Dept. of Corrections, Parchman, MS, for Defendant Michael Hatten.
J. Chadwick Williams, Brittney S. Eakins, Elgin Kenneth Walley, II, Mississippi Attorney General's Office, Jackson, MS, for Defendants Gloria Perry.
J. Chadwick Williams, Brittney S. Eakins, Office of the Attorney General, Jackson, MS, for Defendant Donald Faucett.
BEFORE THE COURT is Plaintiff Thad Everett Delaughter's claim for prospective injunctive relief to obtain total hip revision surgery. A unanimous jury awarded Delaughter $382,000.00 in compensatory damages, finding that former Chief Medical Officer of the Mississippi Department of Corrections ("MDOC") Office of Medical Compliance, Dr. Gloria Perry, in her individual capacity, was deliberately indifferent to Delaughter's serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. By the time of trial, Dr. Perry had been succeeded as Chief Medical Officer by Dr. Donald Faucett, who was automatically substituted as the official capacity Defendant. The Court concludes that Delaughter is entitled to prospective injunctive relief against Dr. Faucett, in his official capacity.
In 2006, Delaughter began serving a 25-year prison sentence in MDOC custody. He has been incarcerated exclusively at facilities operated by MDOC since that time, and his tentative release date is January 2031. Delaughter has suffered from severe rheumatoid arthritis
since he was two years old. Before his incarceration, he received a bilateral hip replacement and a bilateral knee replacement due to rheumatoid arthritis. In 2010, Delaughter began submitting sick call requests, asking to see a doctor about his left prosthetic hip because he was in severe pain. Delaughter was treated with pain medication and steroid injections. Delaughter was referred to Dr. Elliot Nipper, an orthopedic specialist, because MDOC is not staffed or equipped to provide the specialty treatment Delaughter requires.
In July 2011, Dr. Nipper found that the acetabular component of Delaughter's left hip had failed. At a follow-up appointment in September 2011, Dr. Nipper discussed the possibility of surgery with Delaughter and warned him about the severity and complexity of the reconstructive surgery he needed. Dr. Nipper noted that Delaughter smoked cigarettes, which greatly increased his complication rate for surgery. Delaughter consented to surgery and surgery was scheduled for October 2011. Because of the extensive bone loss around Delaughter's left hip, Dr. Nipper required a model of Delaughter's pelvis be constructed using 3D printing, which would allow him to look at the deformity and order customized artificial hip components.
The surgery scheduled for October 2011 was canceled and never rescheduled. Four years later, after still not receiving surgery, Delaughter filed suit pro se in January 2014, alleging a violation of his Eighth Amendment rights against a variety of Defendants. All parties consented to proceed before a Magistrate Judge to conduct all proceedings and to order the entry of a final judgment. Delaughter voluntarily dismissed Wexford Health Services, Christopher Epps, and Johnny Denmark, leaving as Defendants the State of Mississippi, Michael Hatten, medical administrator at South Mississippi Correctional Institution, and Dr. Woodall, who works for Wexford Health Services. Delaughter requested appointment of counsel on two occasions, and the requests were denied.
The State of Mississippi, Hatten, and Dr. Woodall filed Motions for Summary Judgment that were granted by United States Magistrate Judge John C. Gargiulo, and the case dismissed. Mem. Op. and Order [124]. Delaughter appealed the dismissal of the claims against Hatten and Dr. Woodall, in their individual and official capacities, and did not appeal the dismissal of the State of Mississippi.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the grant of summary judgment to Dr. Woodall and reversed the grant of summary judgment to Hatten. Delaughter v. Woodall , 909 F.3d 130, 136-137 (5th Cir. 2018). The Fifth Circuit remanded Delaughter's claim for prospective injunctive relief against Hatten because the district court failed to consider the Ex Parte Young exception to sovereign immunity. Id. at 137 (citing Ex parte Young , 209 U.S. 123, 28 S.Ct. 441, 52 L.Ed. 714 (1908) ). The Fifth Circuit found that summary judgment should not have been granted to Hatten, in his individual capacity, because genuine issues of material fact precluded a finding regarding deliberate indifference. Id. at 139-40. The Fifth Circuit directed this Court to reconsider appointing counsel to Delaughter. Id. at 140-41.
On remand, the Court appointed counsel for Delaughter. Order [156]. Delaughter filed an amended complaint, naming Hatten and Dr. Perry. See Am. Compl. [162]. Hatten and Dr. Perry filed a joint Motion for Summary Judgment [179]. Judge Gargiulo denied the Motion and set the matter for a jury trial. The case was reassigned after Judge Gargiulo's passing and a two-day jury trial held before the undersigned. The jury found that Dr. Perry was deliberately indifferent to Delaughter's serious medical needs, resulting in substantial harm to him, but Hatten was not deliberately indifferent. Verdict [230]. The jury awarded Delaughter $382,000.00 in compensatory damages against Dr. Perry, in her individual capacity, and did not award punitive damages. Id. at 2.
The Court must now determine whether Delaughter is entitled to prospective injunctive relief against Dr. Perry's successor, Dr. Faucett. While Delaughter's prospective injunctive relief claim is now against Dr. Faucett by operation of law, see See Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d), Dr. Perry was the Chief Medical Officer until 2020.
The United States Supreme Court carved out a narrow exception to Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity in Ex parte Young , 209 U.S. 123, 28 S.Ct. 441, 52 L.Ed. 714 (1908). "The Young exception is a legal fiction that allows private parties to bring ‘suits for injunctive or declaratory relief against individual state officials acting in violation of federal law.’ " City of Austin v. Paxton , 943 F.3d 993, 997 (5th Cir. 2019) (citing Raj v. La. State Univ. , 714 F.3d 322, 328 (5th Cir. 2013) ). "For the exception to apply, the state official, ‘by virtue of his office,’ must have ‘some connection with the enforcement of the [challenged] act, or else [the suit] is merely making him a party as a representative of the state, and thereby attempting to make the state a party.’ " Id. (citing Young , 209 U.S. at 157, 28 S.Ct. 441 ).
or related treatment.
Young provides that "[t]he fact that the state officer, by virtue of his office, has some connection with the enforcement of the act, is the important and material fact[.]" Young , 209 U.S. at 157, 28 S.Ct. 441. MDOC's Chief Medical Officer is responsible for requesting, coordinating, and approving treatment for inmates by outside medical specialists. Dr. Faucett is the link between Delaughter and outside specialists. Dr. Faucett has "some connection" and authority to compel the provision of surgery because he is the one responsible for finding a willing surgeon and coordinating treatment. The Young exception applies to Dr. Faucett.
The Prison Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA") establishes standards for the entry and termination of prospective relief in civil actions challenging prisoner conditions. The PLRA requires the Court to make a finding of an ongoing constitutional violation, which is a mixed question of law and fact. Brown v. Collier , 929 F.3d 218, 228 (5th Cir. 2019).
The Eighth Amendment safeguards a prisoner against a lack of medical care that "may result in pain and suffering which no one suggests would serve any penological purpose." Estelle v. Gamble , 429 U.S. 97, 106, 97 S.Ct. 285, 50 L.Ed.2d 251 (1976). The government is obligated to provide prisoners "with a health care system which meets minimal standards of adequacy." Id. at 116 n. 13, 97 S.Ct. 285. Prison officials must respond reasonably to a prisoner's medical needs. Farmer v. Brennan , 511 U.S. 825, 844, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial