Tyler v. Eagleton
| Decision Date | 27 August 2014 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 9:13-3181-MGL-BM |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of South Carolina |
| Parties | Larry James Tyler, Plaintiff, v. Willie Eagleton and Brian Stirling, Defendants. |
This action has been filed by the Plaintiff, pro se, pursuant to 42 U.S.C.§ 1983. Plaintiff, an inmate with the South Carolina Department of Corrections (SCDC), alleges violations of his constitutional rights by the named Defendants.
The Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56, Fed.R.Civ.P., on April 23, 2014. As the Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, a Roseboro order was entered by the Court on April 24, 2014, advising Plaintiff of the importance of a dispositive motion and of the need for him to file an adequate response. Plaintiff was specifically advised that if he failed to adequately respond, the Defendants' motion may be granted, thereby ending his case. After being granted an extension of time to respond to the Defendants' motion, Plaintiff filed memoranda in opposition on June 5, 2014, July 21, 2014 and August 11, 2014.
Defendants' motion is now before the Court for disposition.1
Plaintiff alleges in his verified Complaint2 that he is an inmate at the Evans Correctional Institution, part of the SCDC system. Plaintiff makes a number of claims in his Complaint.
Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants Eagleton (Warden at ECI) and Stirling (Director of the SCDC) have denied his requests for more time in the law library so that he can "do research to submit my PCR to the court". Plaintiff also complains that the law library is "antiquated" and that (apparently officials at the law library) will not make copies of his "legal papers". Plaintiff also makes other complaints, such as that the Defendant Eagleton refuses to give him a prison job, and that Eagleton and Stirling have refused to let him get "one hour of fresh air a day". Plaintiff alleges that he has been at ECI "over seven months and has been outside recreation 5 times and less than a hour". Plaintiff further complains about how the grievance system at the prison is operated, in particular that the "time frames" are "too short" and that it takes too long to process grievances through the prison mail room.
Plaintiff also complains that it took too long to get his "migraine pills" after they were stopped in August (presumably of 2013); specifically, that it took 30 days to get his migraine pills.Plaintiff complains that he had to "go through 30 days of pain and suffering" before he got his medication. Plaintiff further complains that medical is charging him for his medication, which he should not have to pay for because this requirement does not apply to medical costs incurred as a result of injuries sustained by an inmate or due to other medically necessary treatment.
Plaintiff has attached to his Complaint copies of several Request to Staff Member forms and grievance forms. He seeks various injunctive and/or declaratory relief, and (considered liberally) appears to be requesting monetary damages. See generally, Plaintiff's Verified Complaint, with attached Exhibits.
In support of summary judgment in the case, the Defendants have submitted copies of some discovery requests, as well as various medical documents. See Exhibits. The Defendant Eagleton has also submitted an affidavit wherein he attests that he was the Warden at ECI during the relevant time period. Eagleton attests that Plaintiff has been allowed access to the law library in accordance with South Carolina Department of Corrections policy, and that while Plaintiff has utilized the law library on multiple occasions, he is not entitled to unlimited access to the law library, which he [Eagleton] has personally explained to the Plaintiff "to no avail." Eagleton attests that Plaintiff is also not being deprived of "fresh air daily", and that in fact Plaintiff is allowed to walk outside multiple times per day when he walks to and from his housing unit, the dining hall, and his work assignments. Eagleton further attests that Plaintiff is not confined to maximum segregation, but is in the general population, and that as such he is also provided outdoor recreation on a regular basis. With respect to Plaintiff's complaint about a prison job, Eagleton attests that although there is no constitutional right to a prison job, Plaintiff is now working at a prison job. Eagleton attests that the reason Plaintiff did not previously have a prison job was because the number of prison jobsavailable are far less than the actual number of prison inmates.
With respect to Plaintiff's medical problems, Eagleton attests that he is not personally responsible for Plaintiff's medical care, as that responsibility is assigned to medical personnel. Eagleton attests, however, that a review of Plaintiff's medical records reveal that he has been seen and treated on multiple occasions for his medical complaints (a complete copy of Plaintiff's medical record is attached to Eagleton's affidavit as Exhibit A). Eagleton attests that Plaintiff's medical records undeniably reflect that he has been prescribed numerous medications for his headaches and provided with appropriate medical care, and that at no time was he [Eagleton] deliberately indifferent to any serious medical need of the Plaintiff. See generally, Eagleton Affidavit, with attached Exhibits.
The Defendant Bryan Stirling has also provided an affidavit, wherein he attests that he was the Director of the SCDC during the relevant time period. Sterling attests that while he has no personal knowledge of the matters alleged in Plaintiff's Complaint, Plaintiff is not entitled to unlimited use of the law library, or to a prison job, or to unlimited outdoor recreation, or to a grievance system of his own choosing, or to medical and/or prescriptions completely free of charge. Stirling attests than neither he or the other Defendant knowingly violated any of Plaintiff's civil and/or constitutional rights, nor have they been deliberately indifferent to any of Plaintiff's constitutionally required needs. See generally, Stirling Affidavit.
As attachments to his initial opposition to summary judgment, Plaintiff has again submitted copies of several inmate grievances and Requests to Staff Member forms he has filed. In Request to Staff Member forms dated January 20, 2014 and March 13, 2014 (both after this lawsuit was filed), Plaintiff is requesting access to the law library. In response, Plaintiff is instructed to bringall of his legal documents to the education building. In a Request to Staff Member form dated September 30, 2103, Plaintiff complains about not having a prison job. The response to that Request to Staff Member form states "Job service in the community doesn't have enough jobs . . . " and advises Plaintiff that no state laws were being violated. In a Request to Staff Member form dated September 6, 2013, Plaintiff complains that his Naproxen was "not working" for his migraines and that he needs to see the doctor to get another prescription. The response on this Requests to Staff forms reads: "I will get you in to see the provider as soon as I can".
In his second response to the Defendants' motion Plaintiff filed two affidavits. In his first affidavit, responding to Eagleton's statement in his affidavit that Plaintiff is provided outdoor recreation and is also able to walk outside multiple times per day, Plaintiff states that he had a work assignment for about three months (contradicting his claim about not being given a prison job) which was an indoor door janitor job, and that he went outdoors for recreation three times in those three months. Plaintiff also attests that he goes to the dining hall three times a day, during which time he is outside for about five minutes at a time. In his second affidavit, Plaintiff discusses an investigation and potential parole re-evaluation which is not an issue in this lawsuit. See generally, Plaintiff's Affidavits.
In his final response filed on August 11, 2014, Plaintiff attached 32 pages of documents, many of which post-date the filing of this lawsuit as well as relate to matters not at issue in this lawsuit. Additionally, some of these documents are correspondence between the Plaintiff and the Clerk of this Court concerning his filings. In a Request to Staff Member form dated July 1, 2014, Plaintiff complains that prison officials are refusing to make copies of his handwritten legal documents. Plaintiff is advised in the response section of this request that he needs to view PolicyGA 1.03 (13.2) (apparently referring to prisoners handwriting copies of their materials). Plaintiff has also attached copies of some SCDC health services medical summaries from the summer of 2013, beginning in June and ending in August. These documents reflect that Plaintiff was seen in sick call on June 17, 2013 complaining of migraines and that his "meds" were not working. Plaintiff was advised to continue all meds as ordered by the provider, and that the head nurse would schedule an appointment with the provider for an evaluation of possible medication adjustments. Plaintiff then had a followup appointment on June 28, 2013. On August 21, 2013 Plaintiff presented to sick call requesting some more Naproxen for his headaches. The notation for this entry indicates that Plaintiff had put in for a refill of Naproxen two times but had not received any that month, although he denied having any headaches at that time. Plaintiff was assessed with tension headaches. The notation for this entry further indicates that the nurse would check to see if Plaintiff's Naproxen had been received from the pharmacy, but that he had also been given the option of taking Tylenol. The "sign off" notation indicates that Plaintiff's Naproxen prescription was now for ten days or less, and that he would need a provider appointment before it would be renewed. A medical encounter notation for August 23, 2013 states that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial