Lee v. Durbin

• Decision Date: 12 December 2022
• Docket Number: 4:22-CV-112 RLW
• Parties: DOUGLAS ANTONIO LEE, Plaintiff, v. TIMOTHY DURBIN, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri

DOUGLAS ANTONIO LEE, Plaintiff,
v.
TIMOTHY DURBIN, Defendant.

No. 4:22-CV-112 RLW

United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division

December 12, 2022

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

RONNIE L. WHITE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

This matter is before the Court on Defendant Timothy Durbin's Motion for Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 23). Plaintiff Douglas Antonio Lee (“Lee”) brought this suit for damages against Sergeant Timothy Durbin (“Durbin”) under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged violations of his rights. This matter is fully briefed and ready for disposition.^[1]For the reasons stated herein, the Court grants Durbin's Motion for Summary Judgment.

BACKGROUND^[2]

On September 14, 2021, Plaintiff Antonio Lee was booked into the Phelps County Jail (“PCJ”). (Defendant Timothy Durbin's Statement of Uncontroverted Material Facts (“DSUMF”), ECF No. 24, ¶ 1). Lee was placed in the part of the PCJ known as the “Annex” for

1

disciplinary reasons. (DSUMF, ¶ 2). On November 3, 2021, at approximately 5:20 p.m., Durbin was escorting another inmate to the Annex, when he noticed that Lee and others yelling at him. (DSUMF, ¶¶ 3, 4).

Upon investigation, Lee told Durbin that a piece of metal was in Lee's right hand. (DSUMF, ¶ 5). While he removed Lee from the pod, Durbin unholstered his Taser, but he reholstered it once Lee was safely out of the pod. (DSUMF, ¶ 6). Durbin saw a metal splinter protruding from the right side of Lee's hand. (DSUMF, ¶ 7). Durbin brought Lee to the Annex control room and had him sit on the floor with the help of another correction officer. (DSUMF, ¶ 8). Since the jail nurse had departed for the day, Durbin extracted the splinter from Lee's hand. (DSUMF, ¶ 9). The splinter was less than 1/16 in diameter and only % inches long. (DSUMF, ¶ 10). Durbin applied a band-aid to Lee's hand and returned him to his cell. (Id.) Durbin then informed the on-call doctor, Dr. Kessler, of the incident and treatment. (DSUMF, ¶11). Dr. Kessler instructed Durbin to contact the nurse the following day to determine if Lee's tetanus vaccination was current. (Id.) On the same day at 5:27 p.m., Durbin emailed the jail supervisor and nurse Jennifer Worley with Dr. Kessler's recommendations. (DSUMF, ¶ 12).

On November 4, 2021, at 8:40 a.m. Lee was seen by the jail nurse, who observed a small puncture wound with redness. (DSUMF, ¶ 13). The jail nurse cleaned the wound, replaced Lee's bandage, and arranged for Lee to receive a tetanus shot the following day. (Id.) The nurse provided Lee with a 10-day supply of Amoxicillin, instructed Lee to keep the wound clean and dry, and told him to follow up if symptoms worsened. (DSUMF, ¶ 14). On December 25, 2021, Lee refused medication due to a “possible delay in wound healing.” (DSUMF, ¶ 15).

On January 28, 2022, Lee filed a Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (ECF No. 1) and an Amended Complaint on March 3, 2022. (ECF No. 4). Lee alleged that

2

Durbin did not call medical support when Lee had a metal splinter. Instead, Durbin “put his tazer up” and “for no reason, twisted [Lee's] wrist and made it bleed[.]” (ECF No. 4, p. 3). Then Durbin “grabbed a dirty tool and snatched the metal out without calling medical for an hour[.]” (Id.) As a result, Lee claims that he had to get a tetanus shot, had “scratches on [his] arms and back” and he is “almost positive something [is] still in [his] hand.” (ECF No. 4 at 4). The only claims remaining in this lawsuit are Lee's §1983 claims against Durbin for excessive force and deliberate indifference to Lee's medical needs. (ECF No. 6 at 8-9).

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The Court may grant a motion for summary judgment if “the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c); Celotex Corp. v. Citrate, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986); Torgerson v. City of Rochester, 643 F.3d 1031, 1042 (8th Cir. 2011). The substantive law determines which facts are critical and which are irrelevant. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). Only disputes over facts that might affect the outcome will properly preclude summary judgment. Id. Summary judgment is not proper if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party. Id.

A moving party always bears the burden of informing the Court of the basis of its motion. Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 323. Once the moving party discharges this burden, the nonmoving party must set forth specific facts demonstrating that there is a dispute as to a genuine issue of material fact, not the “mere existence of some alleged factual dispute.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e); Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248. The nonmoving party may not rest upon mere allegations or denials of his pleading. Id.

3

In passing on a motion for summary judgment, the Court must view the facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in his favor. Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 331. The Court's function is not to weigh the evidence but to determine whether there is a genuine issue for trial. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249.

DISCUSSION

The Eighth Amendment prohibits the infliction of cruel and unusual punishment. “[T]he treatment a prisoner receives in prison and the conditions under which he is confined are subject to scrutiny under the Eighth Amendment.” Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 31 (1993); Schaub v. VonWald, 638 F.3d 905, 914 (8th Cir. 2011). Although the Eighth Amendment has no application until there has been a “formal adjudication of guilt” the Fourteenth Amendment gives state pretrial detainees-just as the Fifth Amendment gives federal pretrial detainees-rights which are “at least as great as the Eighth Amendment protections available to a convicted prisoner.” City of Revere v. Massachusetts Gen. Hosp., 463 U.S. 239, 244 (1983). “The Constitution affords...