Peoples v. Corizon Health, Inc.
| Decision Date | 21 May 2012 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 2:11-CV-01189-NKL |
| Parties | REYNOLD PEOPLES, Plaintiff, v. CORIZON HEALTH, INC., ET AL, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Missouri |
Pending before the Court is 1) a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim, filed by Defendant Correctional Medical Services, Inc. (n/k/a Corizon, and hereinafter "CMS) [ Doc. # 24]; 2) a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim, filed by individual Defendants Baker, Bradbury, Conley, Green, Henry, Horner, Marcak, Patterson, Peniagua, Swarts, and Wright [Doc. # 26]; and 3) a Joint Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies, filed by Baker, Bradbury, Conley, CMS, Green, Henry, Horner, Marcak, Patterson, Peniagua, Swarts, and Wright [Doc. # 22]. For the following reasons, the Court denies the Joint Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies and the individual Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim, while granting CMS' Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim.
The facts in this section are taken directly from Plaintiff Reynold Peoples' Complaint and from the medical and prison records provided by Peoples.1 On or about the 3rd day of June, 2010, Plaintiff, an inmate at Jefferson City Correctional Center, complained of signs and symptoms of an arterial embolism. On June 3, 2010, an employee of CMS recorded that Peoples' leg was cool to touch, faint pedial pulses and a cap refill less than 3. On June 3, 2010, diagnostic studies indicated that Peoples showed no evidence of deep venous thrombosis in the left lower extremity. On June 4, 2010, Peoples sought additional medical treatment for his lower left leg by declaring a medical emergency from his cell. On June 4, an employee of CMS determined that Peoples' medical condition was not an emergency. On June 7, 2010, JCCC records indicate that a relative of Peoples called the facility with complaints about the medical treatment that Peoples was receiving. On June 7, 2010, JCCC records indicate that an employee of JCCC informed CMS, or an agent of CMS, of the concerns for Peoples' medical condition. On June 7, 2010, a CMS employee recorded that Peoples stated "I have pain in my leg and it is ice cold," but CMS offered no medical treatment. [Doc. # 29-1 at 5].
On June 9, 2010, an employee of CMS observed Peoples' left leg was cold to touch, discolored and purplish. On June 9, 2010, a CMS employee determined thatPeoples' medical condition was non-urgent and that Peoples should be educated on proper access to medical care. On June 10, 2010, Peoples complained of continued leg pain. Medical personnel were notified of Peoples' medical condition.
On June 10, 2010, a CMS employee observed Peoples say that [Doc. # 29-1 at 9]. CMS offered no medical treatment. On June 11, 2010, an employee of CMS observed Peoples complain of lower extremity pain and coolness to the touch. On June 14, 2010, Peoples was admitted to Capital Regional Medical Center in Jefferson City, Missouri.
On June 14, 2010, Peoples' sister, Mary Hanna, was notified of Peoples' poor prognosis. Peoples was diagnosed with aorthioliac occlusive disease. Multiple procedures were completed in an effort to save Peoples' leg but were unsuccessful. Peoples' left leg was amputated above the knee on June 17, 2010. Peoples was discharged from Capital Regional Medical Center on June 23, 2010. Peoples returned to JCCC with multiple incision wounds after multiple procedures at Capital Regional Medical Center. JCCC housing history indicates Peoples was housed in the facility hospital from June 23, 2010 to June 30, 2010, and again from June 30, 2010, without an end date, as of the report dated July 27, 2010.
Peoples' Complaint states that CMS' medical personnel were negligent in providing medical care to him in the following respects: failing to identify signs andsymptoms of an arterial embolism requiring emergency medical attention; failing to ensure that the proper diagnostic test was ordered to identify an arterial embolism; and failing to conduct a proper examination of Peoples. Peoples states that these acts constituted cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution and is thus actionable under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983.
Defendants have filed three motions to dismiss for Peoples' alleged failure to exhaust administrative remedies and to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
On a motion to dismiss, the Court construes the complaint liberally, in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Eckert v. Titan Tire Corp., 514 F.3d 801, 806 (8th Cir. 2008). Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), a complaint must present "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." The purpose of a short and plain statement is to provide defendants with "fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 545 (2007) (citation omitted). To satisfy this standard, "a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'" Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). On a motion to dismiss, a court's evaluation of a plaintiff's complaint is a "context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on itsjudicial experience and common sense." Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1950.
42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), Prisoners need not allege they have exhausted administrative remedies; rather, failure to exhaust is an affirmative defense, with the burden of proof on the Defendant. Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (2007); Dole v. Chandler, 438 F.3d 804, 809 (7th Cir. 2006).
At this stage, Defendants have failed to show as a matter of law that Peoples failed to exhaust his administrative remedies for at least two reasons.2 First, the plain text of the PLRA requires an "available" administrative remedy for the exhaustion requirement to betriggered.3 At the time of these incidents, JCCC had in place an offender grievance procedure. Peoples admits that he did not file a grievance with respect to the allegations against Defendants. [Doc. # 29 at 10]. However, at this early stage of litigation, this admission is an insufficient basis for dismissal. The Defendants rely solely on the fact that at least one general grievance procedure exists at the prison, and that Peoples did not file a grievance under this system. However, nothing in the pleadings establishes that such a grievance procedure would have applied to Peoples' situation, a medical emergency requiring immediate treatment. Further, CMS is a private corporation, which is contracted to provide healthcare to state inmates. The pleadings do not establish that Peoples' claims against CMS could have been handled internally within the prison's general grievance procedure or that the prison grievance procedure would have been able to take any responsive action to Peoples' emergency medical complaints. See Stevens v. Goord, 2003 WL 21396665, *5 (S.D. N.Y., June 16, 2003) (), adhered to on reargument, 2003 WL 22052978 (S.D. N.Y., Sept. 3, 2003). In fact, a genuine dispute of material fact appears to exist on this issue, as People has stated his belief that grievances about medicalcare were "handled exclusively by the entity in charge of providing medical service at the facility, CMS." [Doc. # 29 at 7]. If CMS were in charge of overseeing grievances relating to medical emergencies, or healthcare complaints in general-or if prisoners had a reasonable belief that this was the case- then a failure of Peoples to file a grievance under the prison's administrative system would not be a failure to exhaust under Section 1997e(a). See Giano v. Goord, 380 F.3d 670, 679-80 (2d Cir. 2004) (). There is also the related question of whether the processes utilized by Peoples-for example, his repeated complaints to expert medical staff, and his relative's phone call to the prison about Peoples' medical treatment-satisfied any exhaustion requirement by giving notice to the prison of Peoples' condition and allowing him to communicate his grievance to the appropriate medical and prison authorities. During discovery, the parties can provide further facts about these issues.
Second, even if Peoples were found to be required to exhaust his remedies under the prison's grievance procedure, it is not clear that the administrative process was available to Peoples based on the specific facts of his situation. A genuine dispute of material fact exists as to whether Peoples' medical condition prevented him from filing a grievance. The JCCC grievance policy requires inmates to initiate the grievance procedure within 15 calendar days from the date of the alleged incident. Peoples statesthat the wrongful conduct occurred from June 3 to June 14, 2010, making his deadline for filing June 18, 2010, for the conduct on June 3, 2010, and June 29, 2010, for the conduct on June...
To continue reading
Request your trial