Goins v. McNeil
| Decision Date | 18 August 2011 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 3:10cv551/LAC/EMT |
| Parties | RICHARD C. GOINS, Plaintiff, v. WALTER A. McNEIL, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Florida |
This cause is before the court on Plaintiff's amended civil rights complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (doc. 25). Leave to proceed in forma pauperis has been granted.
The case was referred to the undersigned for the issuance of all preliminary orders and any recommendations to the district court regarding dispositive actions. See N. D. Fla. Loc. R. 72.2(C); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B)(C); and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). After careful consideration of all issues raised by Plaintiff, it is the opinion of the undersigned that dismissal of this action is warranted.
Plaintiff is currently incarcerated at Santa Rosa Correctional Institution ("SRCI"). He was incarcerated at the Orange County Jail ("Jail") and SRCI at the time of the events giving rise to the complaint (doc. 25 at 7-10). Plaintiff names eleven Defendants in this action: Walter A. McNeil, Secretary of the Florida Department of Corrections ("FDOC"); Micheal Tidwell, Chief Administrator at the Jail; M. Mitchell, a member of the medical staff at the Jail; R. Tifft, Warden at SRCI; J. Haas, Assistant Warden at SRCI; R. Burch, Classification Supervisor at SRCI; D.W. Griffiths, Health Service Administrator at SRCI; W.D. Rummel, Medical Director/Chief Health Officer at SRCI; I. Nieves, an Advanced Registered Nurse Practitioner ("ARNP") at SRCI; the Chief of Security at SRCI; and L.D. Brock, Property Room Sergeant at SRCI (id. at 1-4).
Plaintiff alleges that on July 20, 2010, while he was being transported from FDOC custody to the Orange County Jail, he broke his left foot (doc. 25 at 7). Upon his arrival at the Jail, he informed "the security and medical staff of his injury (id.). Approximately 7-10 days later, he received three x-rays (id.). Ms. Mitchell, who Plaintiff states is either a registered nurse or an ARNP, reviewed the x-rays and advised Plaintiff that his foot was not broken, but he had a severe bunion under his left foot behind his left big toe (id. at 7-8). Plaintiff states when Ms. Mitchell showed him the x-rays, he could clearly see that the bone behind his big toe on his left foot was broken, and calcium deposits had begun to develop in the area of the break (id. at 8). Ms. Mitchell prescribed an ankle brace and a pain reliever (id. at 8). Plaintiff filed a formal grievance with Chief Administrator Tidwell on August 18, 2010, complaining that he did not receive proper medical treatment for his foot, and that he was charged $30.00 for medical services and prescriptions . Plaintiff was transferred to FDOC's Reception and Medical Center ("RMC") on August 30, 2010, before he received a response from Administrator Tidwell (doc. 25 at 8).
At RMC, Plaintiff was examined by Dr. Smith (not a named Defendant), who ordered x-rays and issued a medical pass for no prolonged standing or walking, and no heavy lifting (doc. 25 at 8).
On September 21, 2010, Plaintiff was transferred from RMC to SRCI (doc. 25 at 8). Nurse Williams (not a named Defendant) conducted a "medical orientation" with incoming inmates (id. at 9). Plaintiff advised her that his left foot was broken (id.). Nurse Williams documented Plaintiff's information and informed him he would be seen by a doctor (id.).
Seven days later, on September 28, 2010, Plaintiff filed an informal grievance complaining that he had broken his right foot but had not received appropriate medical treatment (doc. 25 at 9; see also doc. 1, Ex. B-1). He stated he was suffering stiffness in his left big toe and "hot and cold sensations" in his left foot (id.). On October 4, 2010, Plaintiff was seen by ARNP Nieves (doc. 25 at 9). Plaintiff informed her of his foot problem and the fact that he had Hepatitis C (id. at 9, 15). ARNP Nieves issued Plaintiff a medical pass for a bottom bunk and instructed Plaintiff to sign up for sick call if he wished to consult with a doctor regarding his foot (see doc. 1 at 13).
On October 5, 2010, Health Services Administrator Griffiths denied Plaintiff's informal grievance and advised him that he must address his medical issue at sick call, for which he wouldbe charged a $5.00 co-payment (doc. 25 at 9; see also doc. 1 at 14, Ex. B-1). Plaintiff appealed the response to the Warden's Office, complaining that the medical staff was denying him medical treatment for his foot and "plac[ing] [him] in a position to be extorted" by requiring him to pay the $5.00 co-payment (id.). Plaintiff requested medical treatment without having to pay the co-payment (see doc. 1, Ex. B-1). Dr. Rummel and Assistant Warden Haas denied the grievance on the ground that FDOC policy provided that each inmate who initiates a non-emergency visit to a health care provider would be assessed a co-payment (id.). Plaintiff appealed the denial to Secretary McNeil's office on October 25, 2010 (doc. 25 at 9). Plaintiff alleges the appeal was denied on March 25, 2011 (after Plaintiff filed the instant complaint, on December 28, 2010), on the ground that Plaintiff's foot showed no signs of a break or fracture (id.).
Plaintiff states that on April 7, 2011, after he filed this lawsuit, he was seen by Dr. Rummel during a medical call-out initiated by Rummel to address Plaintiff's Hepatitis C (doc. 25 at 10). Plaintiff states Dr. Rummel advised him that his Hepatitis C was worsening (id.). Dr. Rummel also conducted a cursory examination of Plaintiff's left foot and advised him that it appeared that his foot had been broken at some point in time (id.). Plaintiff states he asked Dr. Rummel when he would receive treatment for both conditions (id.). Dr. Rummel responded that he had done all he was going to do, and told Plaintiff he could leave (id.). Plaintiff states he still has not received treatment for his foot or Hepatitis C (id.).
In an unrelated claim, Plaintiff alleges he has suffered acts of harassment and retaliation since he filed the informal grievance on September 28, 2010 (doc. 25 at 10). He states he was placed on close management status under "false pretenses" (id. at 17). He additionally states his outgoing and incoming mail was censored, tampered with, and destroyed (id. at 17-18). He states $8,000.00 worth of UCC (Uniform Commercial Code) materials and other "legal" materials were destroyed and confiscated (id. at 18; see also doc. 1 at 13-14, 19, Ex. B-2). His access to the law library was limited to only two (2) days per month (doc. 25 at 18). His hemorrhoid medication was discontinued (id.). Plaintiff additionally states "security personnel" made subtle, verbal threats regarding his grievances and complaints, and constantly moved him from one cell to another to frustrate him (id.).
Plaintiff states the lack of treatment for his foot has resulted in further injury to his left hip and constant pain in his hip and foot (doc. 25 at 12-13).
Plaintiff asserts three claims. First, he claims that Defendants Mitchell, Nieves, Griffiths, Rummel, Tidwell, Haas, Burch, Tifft, and McNeil deprived him of adequate medical treatment for his foot, in violation of the Eighth Amendment (doc. 25 at 12-13). Second, he claims that Defendants McNeil, Tifft, Haas, Burch, Rummel, Nieves, and Griffiths deprived him of adequate medical treatment for the Hepatitis C (id. at 14-16). Third, he claims that Defendants McNeil, Tifft, Haas, Burch, Griffiths, Brock, and the Chief of Security retaliated against him for filing grievances concerning the lack of medical treatment, in violation of the First Amendment (id. at 17-18). Plaintiff additionally states he is asserting state law claims, and he asks the court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those claims (id. at 11).
Plaintiff seeks declaratory relief and nominal, compensatory, and punitive damages (doc. 25 at 19-20). He also seeks an injunction requiring Defendants to: (1) cease all retaliation and return his "legal, informational, and UCC materials," (2) transfer him to Tomoka Correctional Institution,1 and (3) provide him a thirty-day supply of all prescribed medications free of charge upon his release from the FDOC (id.).
Because Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, the court may dismiss the case if satisfied that the action is "(i) frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). A complaint is frivolous under section 1915(e) "where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact." Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325, 109 S. Ct. 1827, 1833, 104 L. Ed. 2d 338 (1989). Dismissals on this ground should only be ordered when the legal theories are "indisputably meritless," id., 490 U.S. at 327, or when the claims rely on factual allegations that are "clearly baseless." Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 31, 112 S. Ct. 1728, 1733, 118 L. Ed. 2d 340 (1992). Dismissals for failure to state a claim are governed by the same standard as Federal Ruleof Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Mitchell v. Farcass, 112 F.3d 1483, 1485 (11th Cir. 1997). The allegations of the complaint are taken as true and are construed in the light most favorable to Plaintiff. Davis v. Monroe County Bd. Of Educ., 120 F.3d 1390, 1393 (11th Cir. 1997). However, such acceptance should not be given blindly; only well-pleaded factual allegations are taken as true and only reasonable inferences are drawn in favor of the plaintiff. See Oladeinde v. City of Birmingham, 963 F.2d 1481, 1485 (11th Cir. 1992); Marrero v. City of Hialeah, 625 F.2d 499, 502 (5th Cir. 1980);2 see also Long v. Satz, 181 F.3d 1275, 1278 (11th Cir. 1999) (per curiam) ("reasonable inferences" drawn); Associated Builders, Inc. v. Ala. Power Co., 505 F.2d 97, 100 (5th Cir. 1974) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial