Delaughter v. Woodall

• Decision Date: 19 November 2018
• Docket Number: No. 16-60246,16-60246
• Citation: 909 F.3d 130
• Parties: Thad Everett DELAUGHTER, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. Ronald WOODALL; Michael Hatten; State of Mississippi, Defendants - Appellees.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

909 F.3d 130

Thad Everett DELAUGHTER, Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
Ronald WOODALL; Michael Hatten; State of Mississippi, Defendants - Appellees.

No. 16-60246

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

FILED November 19, 2018

Thomas Peyton Smith, Forman Watkins & Krutz, L.L.P., Jackson, MS, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Vardaman Kimball Smith, III, Bryan Nelson, P.A., John Chadwick Williams, Esq., Tommy Darrell Goodwin, Esq., Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for the State of Mississippi, Jackson, MS, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before HAYNES, HO, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

HAYNES, Circuit Judge:

Thad Everett Delaughter claims the defendants violated his Eighth Amendment rights by failing to provide medically necessary hip replacement and reconstructive surgery. Delaughter filed suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Michael Hatten, medical administrator at South Mississippi Correctional Institution, and Dr. Ronald Woodall, who works for Wexford Health Services, a medical services contractor for the Mississippi Department of Corrections ("MDOC").¹ Delaughter sought an injunction to obtain the surgery and damages for his pain and suffering. The district court² granted summary judgment in favor of both defendants.

On appeal, Delaughter argues the district court (1) improperly granted summary judgment in favor of Hatten based on sovereign and qualified immunity; (2) improperly concluded there was no genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Dr. Woodall was deliberately indifferent to Delaughter’s medical needs; and (3) abused its discretion in denying Delaughter’s motions to appoint counsel.³

909 F.3d 135

For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM in part, REVERSE in part, VACATE in part, and REMAND.

I. Factual and Procedural Background

Delaughter suffers from rheumatoid arthritis and had hip replacement surgery in 1992, prior to his incarceration. In 2010, Delaughter began experiencing hip pain while incarcerated. Between November 2010 and March 2011, Dr. Woodall treated Delaughter with pain medication and steroid injections on at least four separate occasions. According to Delaughter, Dr. Woodall repeatedly assured Delaughter he would refer Delaughter to a specialist, but no appointment was scheduled. Dr. Woodall asserts that he has authority only to request referrals but not to schedule specialty consultations, and that he put in such a request in June 2011. Delaughter eventually asked Hatten to arrange a specialty consultation, and claims it was Hatten who scheduled an appointment with Dr. Elliot Nipper, an orthopedic specialist.

Delaughter first saw Dr. Nipper in the summer of 2011. Dr. Nipper determined that Delaughter required hip replacement and reconstructive surgery. Delaughter alleges this surgery was scheduled with Dr. Nipper for October 2011, but the surgery was cancelled shortly before it was to occur. Hatten claims Dr. Nipper cancelled the surgery but does not explain why Dr. Nipper did so; Delaughter claims Dr. Nipper told him that "they are simply not going to pay for [the surgery]."

It is unclear what, if any, steps were taken regarding Delaughter’s surgery between the fall of 2011 and 2013. In February and August 2013, Dr. Woodall requested that Delaughter see an outside specialist, and Delaughter saw Dr. Nipper again in September 2013. Dr. Nipper then requested that MDOC refer Delaughter to the University of Mississippi Medical Center ("UMMC") for surgery. MDOC claims that UMMC refused to accept Delaughter as a patient but that, at least as of 2015, MDOC continued to discuss surgery with UMMC. Delaughter’s medical records reflect that Dr. Woodall continued to treat Delaughter with medication and steroid injections at least until 2015.⁴ But Delaughter has yet to receive hip replacement and reconstructive surgery.

Based on the delay in surgery, Delaughter filed suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the district court allowed him to proceed pro se in forma pauperis . Delaughter alleged that Hatten and Woodall violated his Eighth Amendment rights by acting with deliberate indifference toward his medical needs. He sought injunctive relief to obtain the hip surgery and damages for pain and suffering. Delaughter twice moved for appointment of counsel, but his motions were denied. Hatten and Woodall then filed separate motions for summary judgment, and the district court granted both. It held that Hatten was entitled to

909 F.3d 136

sovereign immunity for claims against him in his official capacity and qualified immunity for claims against him in his individual capacity, thus rendering him wholly immune from suit. It also held that Delaughter had failed to create a genuine issue of material fact about whether Dr. Woodall was deliberately indifferent to Delaughter’s medical needs. Delaughter timely appealed and was appointed pro bono counsel on appeal.

II. Standard of Review

We review a grant of summary judgment de novo, applying the same standard as the district court. Cass v. City of Abilene , 814 F.3d 721, 728 (5th Cir. 2016) (per curiam). Summary judgment is appropriate "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). The facts are construed in the non-movant’s favor. Cass , 814 F.3d at 728.

We review the denial of a motion to appoint counsel for abuse of discretion. Jackson v. Dall. Police Dep’t , 811 F.2d 260, 261 (5th Cir. 1986) (per curiam).

III. Discussion

A. Claim against Dr. Ronald Woodall

Delaughter argues that Dr. Woodall was deliberately indifferent to his medical needs because Dr. Woodall knows Delaughter requires surgery but has not received it; thus, the district court erroneously granted summary judgment in Dr. Woodall’s favor.

"A prison official violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment when his conduct demonstrates deliberate indifference to a prisoner’s serious medical needs, constituting an ‘unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain.’ " Easter v. Powell , 467 F.3d 459, 463 (5th Cir. 2006) (per curiam) (quoting Wilson v. Seiter , 501 U.S. 294, 297, 111 S.Ct. 2321, 115 L.Ed.2d 271 (1991) ); see also Estelle v. Gamble , 429 U.S. 97, 104–05, 97 S.Ct. 285, 50 L.Ed.2d 251 (1976). "[D]elay in medical care can only constitute an Eighth Amendment violation if there has been deliberate indifference, which results in substantial harm." Mendoza v. Lynaugh , 989 F.2d 191, 195 (5th Cir. 1993). A prison official acts with deliberate indifference "only if he knows that inmates face a substantial risk of serious harm and disregards that risk by failing to take reasonable measures to abate it." Farmer v. Brennan , 511 U.S. 825, 847, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994) ; see also Mendoza, 989 F.2d at 195. In contrast, "an inadvertent failure to provide adequate medical care" does not violate the Eighth Amendment. Estelle , 429 U.S. at 106, 97 S.Ct. 285. Thus, mere disagreement with one’s medical treatment is insufficient to show deliberate indifference, as are claims based on unsuccessful medical treatment, negligence, or medical malpractice. Varnado v. Lynaugh , 920 F.2d 320, 321 (5th Cir. 1991) (per curiam).

The district court properly granted summary judgment in Dr. Woodall’s favor because there is no evidence that Dr. Woodall failed to take reasonable measures to abate a substantial risk of serious harm to Delaughter. The record supports Dr. Woodall’s assertion that he has no authority to authorize, schedule, or pay for Delaughter’s surgery. The record includes Dr. Woodall’s unrebutted affidavit in which he states that he is neither equipped nor authorized to perform surgery, nor can he schedule, authorize, or arrange for off-site surgery. Since the lack of surgery is the only claimed "deliberate indifference," and this is out of Dr. Woodall’s hands, we conclude that Delaughter did not raise a

909 F.3d 137

fact issue sufficient to defeat summary judgment. Thompson v. Steele , 709 F.2d 381, 382 (5th Cir. 1983) ("Personal involvement is an essential element of a civil rights cause of action."). Therefore, we affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment in Dr. Woodall’s favor.

B. Claims against Michael Hatten

1. Sovereign Immunity

Delaughter argues the district court erroneously concluded that Hatten was entitled to sovereign immunity from Delaughter’s injunctive claims against Hatten in his official capacity. Because the district court failed to address the Ex parte Young⁵ exception to sovereign immunity for claims for prospective injunctive relief, we agree that the injunctive relief claim should be remanded.

"The Eleventh Amendment does not protect state officials from claims for prospective relief when it is alleged that the state officials acted in violation of federal law." Warnock v. Pecos Cty., 88 F.3d 341, 343 (5th Cir. 1996) (citing, inter alia , Ex parte Young , 209 U.S. 123, 155–56, 28 S.Ct. 441, 52 L.Ed. 714 (1908) ). "In determining whether the doctrine of Ex...