Liggins v. Barnett, No. 4-00-CV-90080 (S.D. Iowa 5/15/2001), 4-00-CV-90080.
| Decision Date | 15 May 2001 |
| Docket Number | No. 4-00-CV-90080.,4-00-CV-90080. |
| Parties | Stanley Carter LIGGINS, Plaintiff, v. Maggie BARNETT, Raleigh HELMICK, Leonard GRAVES, Jim HELLING, Roger LAWSON, Richard BARLOW, Victoria PEDERSON, and Jim TRIPP, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Iowa |
This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Maggie Barnett's Motion for Summary Judgment (Clerk's No. 25); Defendants Raleigh Helmick, Leonard Graves, and Jim Helling's Motion for Summary Judgment (Clerk's No. 31); and Plaintiff Stanley Carter Liggins' Motion to Dismiss (Clerk's No. 49)1. Liggins, an inmate at Iowa State Penitentiary (ISP), Fort Madison, Iowa, brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, asserting claims for deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs and retaliation, which allegedly led to his placement in segregation. Liggins seeks compensation for each day after December 20, 1999, that he was in segregation, $10 from each Defendant, and injunctive relief, including a program to teach Defendants Barnett and Helmick how to deal with people, and assurance that Barnett will never again provide his medical screening.
In her Motion, filed December 26, 2000, Barnett asserts she is entitled to summary judgment because she was not deliberately indifferent to Liggins' serious medical needs, she did not retaliate against him, and she is entitled to qualified immunity. In their Motion, filed January 23, 2001, Helmick, Graves, and Helling maintain they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law on Liggins' retaliation claims; the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), effective April 26, 1996, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e, bars recovery because Liggins suffered no physical injury and failed to exhaust his administrative remedies; and Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.
The case was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge on July 6, 2000, for a Report and Recommendation under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). Liggins filed a Resistance to Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment on February 26, 2001, and a supporting Affidavit on March 6, 2001. This matter is fully submitted. After carefully considering the evidence in the record and the memoranda submitted by the parties, the court finds and recommends as follows on the issues presented.
A court grants a motion for summary judgment when the record, viewed in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party, shows that no genuine issue of material fact exists, and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249-50 (1986); Williams v. Kelso, 201 F.3d 1060, 1065 (8th Cir. 2000). To avoid summary judgment, the nonmoving party must, "make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial." Crowley v. Hedgepeth, 109 F.3d 500, 502 (8th Cir. 1997).
The moving party bears the initial burden of informing the court of its basis for the motion and identifying the parts of the record that show lack of a genuine issue. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323. To defeat a motion for summary judgment, the nonmoving party must go beyond the pleadings and establish "by affidavits, or by the depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file," that specific facts show a genuine issue for trial exists. See Fed R. Civ. P. 56(c); Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324.
When considering a claim of deliberate indifference to a serious medical need under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a district court's entry of summary judgment is appropriate when the plaintiff has produced insufficient evidence from which a jury could infer that the plaintiff suffered objectively serious medical needs, and that the defendants actually knew of, but deliberately disregarded, his serious medical needs. See Anderson, 477 U.S. 242 248-49; Williams, 201 F.3d at 1064; Boyd v. Knox, 47 F.3d 966, 968 (8th Cir. 1995).
The following facts are either not in dispute or are those viewed in the light most favorable to Liggins.
Beginning on approximately Thursday, December 16, 1999, Liggins felt sick. At the time, he was in the general prison population. Liggins complained about his symptoms and sought medical assistance. Liggins did not, however, follow ISP's established sick-call procedure for an inmate to get a doctor's appointment at the Health Care Unit, and he did not get an appointment.
On Saturday, December 18, a correctional officer told Defendant Barnett, a registered nurse, that Liggins was ill. Barnett told the officer to have Liggins follow ISP's procedure for making a sick call. Defendants contend, and Liggins does not dispute, that Liggins did not follow ISP's procedure that day or the next for making a sick call. Instead, on Sunday, December 19, Liggins gave a note to another inmate to give to Leroy Gully, the shift captain, asking for medical assistance. In the note, Liggins stated as follows:
I've been trying to receive medical treatment for approximately 5 days. I got bad headaches, my eyes hurt, throat so[re], and a real nasty cough. I haven't had anything to[] eat since [T]hursday. When I stand up I fe[e]l faint. When or if you approve my seeing a doctor, or nurse, please send a wheelchair.
Defs. Helmick, Graves, and Helling's Ex. C at 4.
Nurse Barnett received the note from Gully at approximately 9 a.m. on December 19. Barnett reviewed Liggins' medical chart. The chart showed that an ISP doctor had last seen Liggins on December 2, and told him to take Tylenol as needed for headaches. Barnett noted Liggins made no attempts after the December 2 appointment to follow ISP's sick-call procedure to arrange a visit to the Health Care Unit.
Barnett made an appointment for Liggins to visit the Health Care Unit the next day, December 20, at 8:30 a.m. In her affidavit, Barnett states, "Liggins was further instructed by ISP officials to follow sick call procedure in the future or he would be returned to his cell." (Barnett Aff. at 2.)
After walking to the Health Care Unit at 8:30 a.m. on December 20, Liggins had to wait about an hour to be seen. In his Complaint, Liggins stated he found this wait understandable because other inmates were ahead of him. (Compl. at 4.)
Nurse Barnett saw Liggins at approximately 9:30 a.m. At Barnett's request, Liggins weighed himself. Liggins asserts that before he could tell the nurse what was wrong with him, she confronted him and berated him for not following sick-call procedures. Barnett concedes she told the inmate that in the future, he needed to follow ISP's sick-call procedure to schedule a visit to the Health Care Unit. She also said that forwarding a note to the shift captain was not proper sick-call procedure. Barnett asserts, but Liggins denies, that the inmate became very angry and argumentative, raised his voice, and told her she did not know everything just because she was a nurse.
The nurse contends, but Liggins denies, that she checked and recorded Liggins' temperature, blood pressure, pulse and respiration. Barnett claims she did not believe that Liggins was very ill or needed immediate doctor's attention. The nurse asserts, and Liggins denies, that she told Liggins she thought he had the flu. Liggins does not claim his symptoms were escalating. He does not maintain he felt faint during the screening, when he weighed himself, or when he walked in and out of the screening room. Liggins requested an immediate appointment with the prison physician, but Barnett told the inmate he would have to wait his turn to see the doctor.
Liggins saw Defendant Helling, Deputy Warden, who is in charge of the infirmary and who is a registered nurse, and complained to him about Barnett's not allowing him to see the ISP physician immediately. Helling listened to Liggins describe his symptoms and observed him. Helling noted Liggins was loud and agitated but did not appear to need immediate medical attention. Helling told Liggins he probably had the flu, and that he needed to calm down and wait to be seen by the doctor. Helling left without trying to get Liggins an immediate doctor's appointment.
Liggins claims that after Helling left the area, Barnett approached Liggins and screamed at him for going over her head and complaining to Helling. Barnett denies she ever screamed at Liggins. The nurse asserts that Liggins continued speaking to her in a threatening and intimidating manner, which Liggins denies. Kris Towlerton, a registered nurse who works at the Health Care Unit, stated in her affidavit that she heard Liggins shouting and being disruptive in the Health Care Unit shortly before 11 a.m. on December 20, 1999.
Barnett told Liggins to leave the screening room. The inmate maintains he complied with Barnett's request. The nurse asserts that Liggins refused to leave, and continued arguing with her and shouting. Liggins was not shackled or attended by a correctional officer. Barnett stated she called Officer Roger Hingst to help, and Liggins left the screening room when he saw the officer. Barnett told Liggins to sit in the waiting room until the prison's physician, Dr. Kenneth Caldwell, was available to examine him. The inmate asserts, but Barnett denies, that the nurse told him he would be the last person to see the doctor. Liggins further claims that Barnett passed through the waiting area three times, smiling at him each time. Barnett counters that she was not smiling at Liggins, but at the next inmates she was calling in to see the doctor.
Towlerton testified in her affidavit that when the Health Care Unit is busy, as it was on December 20, 1999, it is not uncommon for an inmate to wait over an hour to see the doctor. Barnett asserts that many inmates waiting to see Dr. Caldwell that...
To continue reading
Request your trial