Rodd v. Crandall
| Decision Date | 24 August 2021 |
| Docket Number | 19-cv-2172 (ECT/KMM) |
| Parties | Jeffrey Charles Rodd, Plaintiff, v. K. Crandall, HS Asst.; Dr. Benjamin Rice; PA Ashley Peterson; C. Nickrenz, Warden; Captain J. Feda; and the United States of America, Defendants.[1] |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota |
Jeffrey Charles Rodd, pro se.
Andrew Tweeten and Ana H. Voss, United States Attorney's Office Minneapolis, MN, for Defendants.
Pro se Plaintiff Jeffrey Charles Rodd alleges that Defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs in violation of his constitutional rights and that they committed medical malpractice and negligence by failing to provide proper treatment for various medical conditions while he was incarcerated by the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”).[2]Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss or, alternatively, for summary judgment of Rodd's claims ECF No. 46, and their motion will be granted.
The majority of Rodd's allegations concern an incident that occurred while he was housed at the Federal Prison Camp in Duluth, Minnesota (“FPC-Duluth”). On the evening of November 5, 2014, Rodd was attending a class in the education building. ECF No. 1 at 2 ¶ A; ECF No. 7 at 1 ¶ 1.[3] While Rodd was being pushed in a wheelchair by the instructor down a loading ramp, the wheelchair hit a pothole and Rodd fell onto the ground. Id. Rodd sustained a number of injuries, including abrasions to his left arm, elbow, and knee, a “twisted” and swollen left foot, and a loose upper front tooth. ECF No. 1 at 3 ¶ A; ECF No. 7 at 2 ¶ 2. Rodd alleges that he had an INR[4] test to evaluate blood clotting earlier that day with poor results and that he bled profusely after the accident. ECF No. 7 at 2 ¶ 2; see ECF No. 1-2 at 6.
Rodd reported the accident and his injuries to Defendant Ashley Peterson the next day. ECF No. 1-2 at 7-8. Peterson examined Rodd and noted the abrasions as well as swelling, bruising and pain in Rodd's left foot. Id. at 8. Peterson ordered an x-ray of Rodd's left ankle and foot and instructed Rodd to keep the abrasions clean and continue wound care. Id. at 8-9. Rodd complains that Peterson did not include his damaged tooth in her report. ECF No. 1 at 3 ¶ A; ECF No. 7 at 2 ¶ 3; see ECF No. 1-2 at 7-9. Defendant Dr. Benjamin Rice also examined Rodd and told him that they would “at some point[] need to get him out of [the] wheel chair.” ECF No. 1-2 at 9. Rodd requested physical therapy for his injuries, but Defendant Kraig Crandall denied his request. Id. at 2. According to Rodd, he “reported to the medical office almost daily” and “constantly report[ed] [his] foot pain [and] knee pain to” Peterson and Dr. Rice. ECF No. 1 at 4 ¶ D; ECF No. 7 at 7. Rodd alleges that his “request for physical therapy or relief went unanswered” and that he was given “a basic bandage for [his] damaged knee cap.” ECF No. 1 at 5 ¶ D; ECF No. 7 at 7. Rodd later requested additional wound care, but Crandall denied that request in December 2014 on the basis that Rodd would be “[t]ransferring to [a] BOP [i]npatient bed.” ECF No. 1-2 at 5.
Rodd was transferred to the Federal Medical Center in Rochester, Minnesota (“FMC-Rochester”), on January 13, 2015. ECF No. 1 at 5 ¶ E; ECF No. 7 at 2 ¶ 5. Rodd alleges that he reported the wheelchair accident and a separate incident in which his eyes had frozen shut “upon arrival at the FMC” and that he further reported his injuries and continuing pain “many many times” to Defendant Jessica Feda and Hopper, see supra note 1, both physical therapists. ECF No. 1 at 5 ¶ E; ECF No. 7 at 7. Rodd also alleges that his left front tooth came out two days after his arrival at FMC-Rochester, “causing [him] to have a lisp.” ECF No. 7 at 2 ¶ 5. According to Rodd, he had “many physical therapy treatments” but “remained mostly in a wheelchair” while at FMC-Rochester due to “the poor balance [he] had from [his] injuries and then from going blind.” ECF No. 1 at 5 ¶ E; ECF No. 7 at 2 ¶ 7. Rodd alleges that he was given acetaminophen daily and “listed as Chronic pain and Chronic Care, but never received any treatment for the pain or [his] injuries.” ECF No. 7 at 8.
In September 2015, Rodd was transferred to the Federal Medical Center in Lexington, Kentucky (“FMC-Lexington”). ECF No. 1 at 6 ¶ F. While there he “still had a great deal of pain in [his] left foot and knee” but “walked without a wheelchair” for the first time since coming into the BOP in September 2014. Id. Rodd also had monthly physical therapy appointments. Id. However, Rodd alleges that he asked for an x-ray of his left knee “at least 20 times” until one was ordered, which showed “an 8mm calcified bone spur.” Id.; see ECF No. 1-2 at 10 (x-ray report from February 22, 2019). Rodd states that he has a permanent scar on his left knee and tissue damage to his left foot and knee, that his foot “remains deformed or bent to the left, ” and that he is “on acetaminophen for chronic pain” and “walk[s] with a cane.” ECF No. 1 at 5 ¶ E; ECF No. 7 at 2 ¶ 4.
Rodd's other allegations concern the overall treatment of his chronic medical conditions while in BOP custody. Rodd alleges that it was “an abuse of discretion by B.O.P. Administrators when he was sent to a non-handicapped facility instead of the Federal Medical Center” and that his rights “under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments” pertaining to the “protection of a prisoner's life and health” were violated. ECF No. 1 at 6 ¶ G; ECF No. 7 at 3 ¶¶ 9-10. Rodd alleges that when he arrived at FPC-Duluth, he explained to Dr. Rice that he “had been treated for 26 medical issues and [] was suppose[d] to have been sent to a Federal Medical Center.” ECF No. 1 at 3 ¶ A; see ECF No. 1-2 at 3-4. Rodd further alleges that he informed Dr. Rice that he was supposed to be on two medications to treat atrial fibrillation but that Dr. Rice did not “listen to [his] medical history” and refused to prescribe the medications, which resulted in a four-day hospital stay from October 31 to November 3, 2014. ECF No. 1 at 3 ¶ A, 4 ¶ B; see ECF No. 1-2 at 1. Rodd also alleges that because Defendant Christopher Nickrenz is the warden of FPC-Duluth and “oversees the complete administration of the medical staff, grounds, housing, safety, etc.” he “should also be held responsible.” ECF No. 1 at 6-7 ¶ G. With respect to both the injuries he sustained in the wheelchair accident and his chronic medical conditions, Rodd alleges that Defendants' actions amounted to deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Id. at 4 ¶ B, 5 ¶¶ D, E, 7 ¶ G; ECF No. 7 at 3 ¶ 12, 7-8.
Defendants argue that Rodd's Bivens claims against them cannot proceed because he has not exhausted his administrative remedies within the BOP.[5] Defs.' Mem in Supp. at 7-11 [ECF No. 48]; see Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), exhaustion of available administrative remedies is mandatory. Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 211 (2007); see 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) ().[6] However, “inmates are not required to specially plead or demonstrate exhaustion in their complaints.” Jones, 549 U.S. at 216. “[F]ailure to exhaust is an affirmative defense under the PLRA” that a defendant has the burden to plead and prove. Id.; Nerness v. Johnson, 401 F.3d 874, 876 (8th Cir. 2005); see Lenz v. Wade, 490 F.3d 991, 993 n.2 (8th Cir. 2007) ().
Defendants have moved to dismiss Rodd's claims under Rule 12(b)(6) or, alternatively, for summary judgment under Rule 56. ECF No. 46. “[A]ffirmative defenses are generally not a basis for a motion to dismiss under 12(b)(6)” unless “the complaint clearly shows the existence [of] a defense.” United States v. Xcel Energy Inc., 759 F.Supp.2d 1106, 1118 (D. Minn. 2010) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Here, Rodd's pleading does not mention exhaustion one way or the other, and it would be incorrect to find the absence of exhaustion from the absence of allegations concerning exhaustion, at least when Rodd had no burden to plead it.
Defendants' contention that Rodd did not exhaust his administrative remedies with respect to his Bivens claims is based on evidence in the record. In support of their motion, Defendants filed the declaration of a Paralegal Specialist for the BOP, Shannon Boldt, and eight accompanying exhibits. ECF Nos. 49, 49-1-49-8. Boldt's declaration and the attached exhibits are “matters outside the pleadings.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(d). They are not among the categories of documents embraced by the pleadings. See Zean v. Fairview Health Servs., 858 F.3d 520, 526 (8th Cir. 2017) . Considering these materials in resolving Defendants' motion therefore requires treating the motion “as one for summary judgment under Rule 56.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(d).
When converting a motion to dismiss to one for summary judgment “[a]ll parties must be given a reasonable opportunity to present all the material that is pertinent to the motion.” Id. “[A] party against whom this procedure is used . . . is normally entitled to notice, ” actual or constructive, “that conversion is...
To continue reading
Request your trial