Keitz v. Unnamed Sponsors of Cocaine Research Study
| Decision Date | 16 December 2011 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 3:11–cv–00054. |
| Citation | 279 Ed. Law Rep. 785,829 F.Supp.2d 374 |
| Parties | Michael James KEITZ, Plaintiff, v. UNNAMED SPONSORS OF COCAINE RESEARCH STUDY, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Virginia |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Michael James Keitz, Sonyea, NY, pro se.
The plaintiff, Michael James Keitz (Keitz or plaintiff), proceeding pro se, filed this amended complaint on November 14, 2011, bringing two claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and one state law technical battery claim. The defendant had filed the original pro se complaint on August 26, 2011. However, on September 1, 2011, after granting the plaintiff's contemporaneously filed motion to proceed in forma pauperis, the court dismissed the original complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), concluding that the plaintiff had failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted and that the plaintiff's claims were frivolous. (Docket No. 3.) After conducting an initial screening of the amended complaint, the court concludes that the plaintiff's § 1983 claims must be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). With the plaintiff's federal claims being dismissed, the court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claim.
Slight variances in the facts presented in the original complaint and in the amended complaint prompt the court to summarize the facts anew based on the allegations in the amended complaint.1
According to the amended complaint, the plaintiff responded in the summer of 2009 to radio advertisements and applied to participate in a medical study at the University of Virginia's Center for Addiction Research and Education (UVA Care). (Docket No. 17 at 1–2.) After extensive physical tests performed by an unnamed male nurse (Unnamed Nurse 1), UVA Care accepted the plaintiff's application and instructed him that he would stay for nine days in UVA Care, beginning on September 7, 2009, during the administration of the study. ( Id. at 2.) As part of the study, the plaintiff would orally ingest the drug Topiramate and, subsequently, would be injected with cocaine for the “ostensibl[e]” purpose of testing Topiramate's effect on a drug user's desire for cocaine. ( Id.) According to the plaintiff, he ingested doses of Topiramate, received four cocaine injections, and otherwise completed the nine-day study “without incident, except for some panic and discomfort surrounding the 4 cocaine injections he underwent.” ( Id.)
In addition to this panic and discomfort, the plaintiff alleges that, during the study, both he and another participant “were subjected to odd interrogational questioning by staff while still under the influence of the test drugs.” ( Id.) As part of the interrogational techniques allegedly employed against them, the UVA Care staff asked the plaintiff and the other participant to “name random words starting with a certain letter in a 60 second time-frame.” ( Id.) The plaintiff expounds in his amended complaint on this particular interrogational technique:
8. This plaintiff was astonished at his ability to rattle off multi syllable words, often exclaiming afterward—“is that a word?” [and] not knowing from whence such word came!
9. Then the plaintiff's mind seemed to just as quickly to [sic] fail him [and] he couldn't think of any word at all (relevant to the test).
10. When plaintiff reported this discrepancy in ability to answer to the questioner, she replied[,] “That's common.”
11. At one point immediately following an injection [of cocaine], plaintiff's co-participant's heart rate skyrocketed on the monitor. The man then stood up launching into a 5 minute diatribe of his most personally held regrets [and] short comings. 20 minutes later, he exclaimed[,] “I don't know why I said that stuff ... Nothing like that has ever happened to me before.”
( Id. at 3.)
UVA Care discharged the plaintiff after the nine-day study, furnishing the plaintiff with written instructions to report immediately to the emergency room in the event that he experienced certain “physical [or] manic symptoms.” ( Id.) At about the time of his release, on or about September 16 or 17, the plaintiff began to experience some of the symptoms identified in the instructions, namely, euphoria and increased hearing sensitivity. ( Id.) On September 18, according to the amended complaint, these symptoms “took a turn for the worse with the sudden arrival of tingling/numbness in the face, coupled with intense fear of being a victim of a poisoning conspiracy.” ( Id.) With the advent of these intensified symptoms, the plaintiff was transported by ambulance to the emergency room at the University of Virginia Medical Center (UVA ER), the site of the drug study. ( Id.) The plaintiff communicated to the UVA ER staff his participation in the Topiramate and cocaine study. ( Id. at 3–4.) The UVA ER staff then directed the plaintiff to linger in the lobby “where he suffer[ed] alone w/facial paralysis [and] panic.” ( Id. at 4.) After hours of waiting in this “fearful state,” a woman summoned him to the window. ( Id.) While at the window, the plaintiff spoke to the woman about the UVA ER staff's inaction toward his “serious medical and psychiatric needs.” ( Id.) After this conversation, the plaintiff was unable to walk back to his seat and collapsed on the floor in front of the window. ( Id.) The woman to whom he spoke at the window “disdainfully inform[ed him] he ‘can't sit [there].’ ” ( Id.) A nurse who passed the plaintiff as he lay collapsed on the floor remarked, “That guy[']s crazy.” ( Id.)
According to the amended complaint, the plaintiff repeatedly phoned his parents in North Carolina during his hours of waiting in the UVA ER, relating to them his situation. ( Id.) His parents phoned the hospital to inquire why the UVA ER staff “fail[ed] to ‘lift a finger’ to aid their son.” ( Id.)
Finally, the plaintiff alleges, “after more lengthy delay and parental intervention,” the UVA ER staff led the plaintiff to an “isolated (storage type) area out of earshot of other patients.” ( Id.) Three doctors (Unnamed Doctors 4, 5, and 6) then entered the room. ( Id.) The plaintiff explained to them his symptoms and that he “feels his ‘eye vein’ is why he is ill.” ( Id.) Obviously, the plaintiff alleges, “this puts staff (again) on notice of a serious medical [and] mental condition, known to exist for hours on end, [and] a byproduct of a drug study in their hospital, gone awry.” ( Id.) The three doctors left the room and, shortly thereafter, a female nurse appeared, administered valium to the plaintiff, and ushered him out of the hospital. ( Id.)
The plaintiff's “fullblown mania” persisted into the following morning. ( Id.) The plaintiff phoned the female research assistant from the drug study (Unnamed Nurse 3) and spoke with her repeatedly that morning, noting that she “act[ed] nervous but offer[ed] no help.” ( Id. at 4–5.) The plaintiff continued to contact the UVA Care staff for the next several days, communicating his symptoms and his experience at the UVA ER. ( Id. at 5.) Furthermore, the amended complaint alleges, the plaintiff transmitted several emails to the director of UVA Care. ( Id.) However, the plaintiff alleges, his efforts to seek help from UVA Care proved fruitless—“nothing was done to remedy the physical [and] psychological dangers plaintiff faced, that UVA Care [and] UVA Medical Center created.” ( Id.) The plaintiff notes that, in response to his phone calls and email messages, the UVA Care staff informed him that a nurse would call him back; however, the plaintiff alleges, this nurse never called him back. ( Id.)
After receiving no response from UVA Care, the plaintiff elected to travel to Florida to cure himself of facial paralysis, which “a manic-delusional plaintiff feels is caused by ‘demons.’ ” ( Id.) However, before boarding a bus, the plaintiff abandoned most of his personal possessions in Charlottesville, alleging that this decision stemmed from his troubled mental state. ( Id.) Shortly after departing Charlottesville, the plaintiff received a phone call from a doctor involved with the UVA Care drug study (Unnamed Doctor 2). ( Id.) The plaintiff reported to this doctor his destination and related “the egregious lack of care received by the 3 E.R. doctors.” ( Id.) The plaintiff arrived in Florida without receiving any further contact from UVA Care. ( Id.) During his time in Florida, the plaintiff “wander[ed] homeless for days” in an “anxiety filled psychological haze” as the “facial paralysis [and] manic state continue[d] unabated.” ( Id.)
After the plaintiff's symptoms subsided, he decided to leave Florida and travel to New York. ( Id.) However, before boarding a bus, the plaintiff phoned the UVA Care doctor involved with the drug study and inquired whether the doctor desired to examine the plaintiff. ( Id. at 6.) The doctor declined, stating that the plaintiff had “experienced problems” from the study. ( Id.) Thereafter, the plaintiff travelled to New York, where his mental health deteriorated. ( Id.) While in New York, the plaintiff experienced a serious panic attack and was admitted to Olean General Hospital's “psych unit,” where he remained for seven to ten days. ( Id.) According to the plaintiff, he was diagnosed with anxiety disorder and, to this day, continues to struggle with “panic attacks that were non-existent prior to his participation in, [and] denial of treatment after, the botched experiment at UVA Care.” ( Id.)
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, which governs in forma pauperis proceedings, the court bears a mandatory duty to screen initial filings. Eriline Co. v. Johnson, 440 F.3d 648, 656–57 (4th Cir.2006). Specifically, “a district court must dismiss an action that the court finds to be frivolous or malicious or that fails to state a claim.” Michau v. Charleston Cnty., S.C., 434 F.3d 725,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brady v. Hey
...sufficient facts to trigger a duty for Defendant CMS to affirmatively protect V.B. See, e.g., Keitz v. Unnamed Sponsors of Cocaine Rsch. Study, 829 F. Supp. 2d 374, 383-84 (W.D. Va. 2011) (summarizing numerous cases that have applied the state-created danger doctrine). In sum, while the Cou......