Esparza v. Manley
| Decision Date | 18 February 2022 |
| Docket Number | 4:18-cv-00782-SEP |
| Parties | JOHNNY M. ESPARZA, Plaintiff, v. DIANE MANLEY, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri |
JOHNNY M. ESPARZA, Plaintiff,
v.
DIANE MANLEY, et al., Defendants.
No. 4:18-cv-00782-SEP
United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
February 18, 2022
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
SARAH E. PITLYK, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Before the Court is Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. Doc. [52]. The Motion has been fully briefed. For the reasons set forth below, the Motion is granted as to Defendants Driskell, Manley, Bouse, “Monty, ” “K, ” and denied as to Defendant Crawford County.
Facts and Background
Plaintiff Johnny Esparza initiated this action on May 18, 2018. Doc. [1]. On February 15, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint, naming as Defendants, Crawford County Sheriff's Department and five individuals: Zackary Driskell, Diane Manley, Derek Bouse, and two unknown individuals whom Plaintiff refers to as “Monty” and “K.” Doc. [27]. On September 24, 2019, the Court dismissed all claims against Defendants in their official capacities, as well as Plaintiff's Failure to Protect and Failure to Supervise claims. Doc. [42]. Plaintiff now has three remaining claims. Count I alleges that Defendants violated his rights under the ADA. Doc. [27] at 9. Count II alleges that Defendants violated his Fourteenth Amendment right to treatment for a serious medical need. Id. at 10. Count III alleges that Defendants retaliated against him for exercising his First Amendment right to free speech. Id. at 11.
In 2014, Plaintiff had a total laryngectomy to treat Stage IV cancer, which resulted in a visible hole (or “stoma”) in his throat. Doc. [65] (Plaintiff's Statement of Additional Material Facts) ¶¶ 1, 4. Plaintiff alleges that, as a result of the procedure, he can no longer speak
naturally.[1] Id. ¶¶ 1, 3. After the surgery, Plaintiff contends that his surgeon prescribed him an electrolarynx-a device which, when placed to Plaintiff's throat, allows him to speak. Id. ¶ 2. The electrolarynx is assembled from multiple smaller parts and is powered through the use of a detachable, rechargeable battery. Doc. [64] ¶ 24. Plaintiff alleges that he cannot verbally communicate without the electrolarynx, although he can write, mouth words, and use hand signals as alternatives. Doc. [65] ¶ 3. In addition to the communication issues caused by the laryngectomy, Plaintiff alleges that his stoma, which is used to help him breathe and speak when he uses the electrolarynx, must be kept clean and humid to prevent it from crusting over. Id. at 4.
Plaintiff was incarcerated as a pre-trial detainee at the Crawford County Detention Center on January 11, 2018, in connection with a warrant for his arrest. Doc. [64] (Plaintiff's Response to Defendants' Statement of Material Facts) ¶ 1; Doc. [52] (Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment) ¶ 1. When Plaintiff arrived at the Detention Center, he had his electrolarynx in his possession. Doc. [70] (Defendant's Response to Plaintiff's Statement of Additional Facts) ¶ 6. Believing that Plaintiff's electrolarynx could be used as a weapon, [2] Defendants initially placed him in a single-person cell under administrative segregation. Id. After Plaintiff's initial separation, Defendants gave him two choices: remain in administrative segregation and keep his electrolarynx or enter the general population without the device.[3] Id. ¶ 7. Plaintiff agreed to move to the general population and was transferred there on January 20, 2018. Id. ¶ 11. Plaintiff alleges that, prior to the move, he instructed Defendants on how to properly charge his electrolarynx for future use; Defendants deny that such a conversation occurred. Id. ¶ 10. During his time in the general population, Plaintiff alleges that he was not provided with additional free materials or accommodations in place of the electrolarynx. Id. ¶ 11.
On January 22, 2018, Plaintiff filed a Level I Grievance Form requesting possession and use of the electrolarynx in the general population.[4] Docs. [64] ¶ 30; [70] ¶ 12. In his request, [5]Plaintiff described his frustration with his lack of access to the electrolarynx or, alternatively, a
pen and paper. Docs. [70] ¶ 12; [65-6] Ex. B3 (Plaintiff's Jan. 22, 2018, Level 1 Grievance). In part, Plaintiff's complaints centered around feeling unsafe, because he was unable to “yell or write for help” in the general population. Doc. [70] ¶ 12. Plaintiff's request was denied the same day, and Defendants told him that he may choose to return to administrative segregation if he did not feel safe in the general population. Id.; Doc. [64] ¶ 30. Defendants assert that Plaintiff did not appeal the January 22, 2018, decision.[6] Doc. [70] ¶ 14.
After Plaintiff's initial complaint, throughout January and February 2018, he began repeatedly filing grievances complaining about his lack of access to his electrolarynx or other means of communication, both in the general population and at other times when he expected to have access to the device. Id. ¶ 13; Doc. [65-3] Ex. B ¶ 15. Additionally, Plaintiff complained about the way Defendants treated him and his frustration with the grievance process. Doc. [70] ¶¶ 13-15. Specifically, in his various grievances, Plaintiff made the following accusations: that he was unable to communicate with his visitors because he lacked access to his electrolarynx or an alternative means of communication;[7] that Defendants “continually refused” to charge his device properly when it was in their possession, Doc. [64] ¶ 32;[8] that the commissary computer
was broken, so he could not purchase envelopes to send correspondence, id.; that his serious medical needs were ignored, id. ¶ 35; that he was denied access to pens and paper as an alternative method of communication, id.; that Defendant Manley was “losing” faxes that he used to communicate with his attorney, id. ¶ 37; that he felt unsafe in the general population without his electrolarynx, id. ¶¶ 35, 38, 39; and that it was inappropriate for Defendant Manley to review grievances that were related to her own conduct, Doc. [70] ¶ 15 (citing [65-3] (Esparza Declaration) ¶ 17). Various Defendants and other Detention Center staff-most frequently, Defendant Manley-responded to Plaintiff's grievances, which were all denied. See Doc. [64] ¶¶ 33-40.
On February 16, 2018, Plaintiff attempted to correspond directly with the Crawford County Sheriff, Darin Layman, to complain of an incident that occurred on or around that day involving a visit he had with the Detention Center nurse. Id. ¶ 42. Sheriff Layman did not respond to Plaintiff's complaint. Id. Plaintiff alleges that, during the visit, he was unable to communicate with the nurse because he did not have access to his device or any other materials to communicate with. Doc. [65-3] Ex. B ¶ 23. According to Plaintiff, that made him “visibly frustrated and upset, ” for which he wrote to Defendant Wright to apologize. Id. ¶¶ 23-24. In response to his apology, Plaintiff claims that Defendant Wright noted that he “wished there was more [he] could do” for him. Id. ¶ 24.
On the same day, Sergeant Hanner, a non-party, entered a note on Plaintiff's inmate file, noting that Plaintiff filed a complaint stating that he was being denied access to medicine and was unable to clean his stoma without the proper equipment. Doc. [64] ¶ 44. Hanner's note mentioned that he spoke to the nurse, who said that Plaintiff declined medication at first because it was too expensive, and that Plaintiff also stated that he did not need any equipment to clean the stoma so long as he had access to a hot shower. Id.
Despite filing various Level I Grievances, Plaintiff did not initiate the proper appeals process for any of his complaints. See Docs. [53] at 5-6; [63] at 3. Plaintiff nevertheless contends that several of his communications were attempts to appeal the denials of his initial complaints.[9] Doc. [65-3] ¶ 17 (“I also tried to appeal in other ways.”). Those attempts are
evidenced, according to Plaintiff, by his comments on various grievances that were returned to him. Doc. [70] ¶ 15. For instance, on an original form that was returned to him, Plaintiff wrote that Defendants never “addressed this issue” and that he was given no responses to his previous grievances. Doc. [64] ¶ 41. Additionally, Plaintiff points to a complaint he made about Defendant Manley impermissibly reviewing grievances of which she was the subject. See Doc. [65-3] Ex. B ¶ 17 (citing Ex. B5). Plaintiff also alleges that he attempted to appeal the determinations in other ways. Doc. [65] ¶ 15. Finally, Plaintiff notes that the letter addressed to Sheriff Layman was an attempt to appeal the conditions that he complained about in his various grievances. Id.
Despite Plaintiff's attempts to challenge Defendants' decisions, he remained in the general population without his device and without free access to pen or paper. Doc. [70] ¶ 22. Besides the communication issues described in his grievances, Plaintiff alleges that he suffered additional mistreatment due to his disability. For example, he claims that he was unable to use his electrolarynx at a court proceeding on February 21, 2018, id. ¶ 21; that he had to resort to mouthing words or making hand gestures to non-disabled inmates in an effort to have them speak on his behalf, id. ¶ 22; and that he could not make phone calls because of the charging issue with his electrolarynx and was not allowed to access “indigent envelopes” to make up for the inability to speak on the phone, id. ¶¶ 23-24.
Finally, in addition to Plaintiff's complaints related to his inability to communicate, he alleges that he was harassed by Defendants-Defendant Manley in particular-because of his disability and his criticism of the conditions of the Detention Center. Plaintiff claims that Defendant Manley “jokingly” told Plaintiff not to yell at her, which he perceived as her taunting him for his inability to yell. Id. ¶ 25. He contends that Defendants denied him access...
To continue reading
Request your trial