Whitehead v. Lamour
| Decision Date | 12 November 2014 |
| Docket Number | Case No: 2:12-cv-197-FtM-29DNF |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Florida |
| Parties | BRUCE WHITEHEAD, Plaintiff, v. JACQUES LAMOUR, Dr., HUBERT SMART, Lieutenant, HOWARD EASTER, C.O., and E. WALKER, TST, Defendants. |
This matter comes before the Court upon the following:
Plaintiff Bruce Whitehead ("Plaintiff") initiated this action by filing a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. 1). Plaintiff's amended complaint is currently before the Court (Doc. 17).
The claims raised in Plaintiff's amended complaint stem from events that occurred on March 12, 2009 at the Florida Civil Commitment Center ("FCCC") in Arcadia, Florida. As discussed below, the Court concludes that Plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment against Defendant Lamour is due to be denied. The motion for summary judgment filed by Defendants Smart, Easter, Walker, and Lamour is due to be granted.
Plaintiff1 initiated this case on April 5, 2012 by filing a complaint against Udayan Agrawal, Craig Beloff, Timothy Budz,Jorge Deminicus, Howard Easter, George Emanoilidis, Angel Garrido, Geo Group, Inc., Michael P. Hancock, Suzonne Kline, Jacques Lamour, Moiere Landais, Ron Lawrenz, Rex Richie, George Sheldon, Hubert Smart, FNU Walker, and Robin Wilson (Doc. 1). Because Plaintiff raised unrelated claims in the complaint and failed to adequately state claims against some of the defendants, he was ordered to file an amended complaint if he wished to proceed (Doc. 14, filed October 31, 2012).
Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on December 26, 2012 in which he sued defendants Dr. Angel Garrido, Dr. Jacques Lamour, Hubert Smart, Howard Easter, Earl Walker, Dr. Michael P. Hancock, Dr. Udayan Agrawal, and Moliere Landais (Doc. 17). Defendants Garrido, Hancock, Agrawal, and Landais were dismissed from this case due to Plaintiff's failure to state a claim against them. SeeOrders at Doc. 20, Doc. 66. In this Order, the remaining Defendants shall be referred to collectively as "Defendants."
On December 17, 2013, Defendants were ordered to conduct discovery (Doc. 69). Thereafter, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking partial summary judgment on all of his claims against Defendant Lamour (Doc. 74). Defendants filed a motion seeking summary judgment in their favor on all of Plaintiff's claims (Doc. 76).
All of Plaintiff's allegations in his amended complaint stem from an event that occurred on March 12, 2009 in which Plaintiff claims that excessive force was used against him and that the excessive force resulted in Plaintiff's broken hip. The facts, as alleged in Plaintiff's amended complaint, are as follows:
Each defendant in this action knew, "or should have known by review of Plaintiff's Clinical File" that he suffers from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and Borderline Personality Disorder (Doc. 17 at ¶ 3). On March 12, 2009, he was on suicide watch status which involved confinement in an 8.5 foot by 5.5 foot cell. Plaintiff asserts that his psychiatrist ordered that Plaintiff was allowed to leave the cell for bathroom breaks only, and then only when escorted by three security guards (Doc. 17 at ¶ 4; Doc. 17-4 at 2, 3).
On March 12, 2009, Plaintiff told Defendant Walker that he needed to use the restroom. Plaintiff was escorted to the restroom by Defendant Walker, Defendant Easter, and Defendant Smart (Doc. 17 at ¶ 5). While in the restroom, Plaintiff broke a towel rack from the wall, used the towel rack to smash a glass mirror, held a portion of the broken mirror to his throat, and threatened to cut himself if he was not taken outside for fresh air and a smoking break. Id. Plaintiff was escorted outside, and after smoking approximately half a cigarette, he dropped the broken mirror to the sidewalk. Id. Defendant Smart approached Plaintiff who "assertively requested Defendant Smart to respect him and that he be given his personal space." Id. Defendants Smart and Easter then walked towards Plaintiff "in an aggressive and threatening manner." Id. ¶ 6. Plaintiff felt threatened and ran away which involved climbing over the handrail surrounding the sidewalk. Id. He was pursued by Defendants Smart and Easter. Id. Defendant Smart "grabbed the Plaintiff from behind by the top of Plaintiff's shoulders with two hands, forcibly driving his right knee upwards, striking Plaintiff in the right lower back and hip area." Id. Plaintiff's and Smart's forward momentum caused Plaintiff to fall forward about 2.5 feet from a concrete ledge and caused Defendant Smart to land on top of Plaintiff. Id. at ¶¶ 6-7. Defendant Smart then forced Plaintiff's face into the dirt and screamed obscenities at him. Id.
Defendant Easter grabbed Plaintiff's right arm and forced it behind Plaintiff's back while Defendant Smart forced Plaintiff's left arm behind Plaintiff's back (Doc. 17 at ¶ 7). Plaintiff screamed in pain that his leg was broken, but Defendants Smart and Walker "picked up Plaintiff by his arms and forced him to his feet while continuing to disregard [his] screams" that his leg was broken." Id. at ¶ 8. Plaintiff was escorted to the medical building with his right foot and leg dragging the ground. Id.
Subsequent to his altercation with Defendants Smart and Easter, Defendant Lamour examined Plaintiff and ordered that he be taken to Desoto Memorial Hospital for further examination (Doc. 17 at ¶ 9). Plaintiff was taken to Desoto Memorial Hospital on the same day (March 12, 2009) (Doc. 17 at ¶ 11). At the hospital, Plaintiff's right hip was x-rayed, and he was told that the only injuries he had received were bruises even though he told the doctors at the hospital that he believed his leg to be broken (Doc. 17 at ¶ 11). Plaintiff was given medication for pain and was discharged from the hospital (Doc. 17 at ¶ 11). The next morning, Plaintiff was returned to his suicide watch isolation cell (Doc. 17 at ¶ 12).
On March 13, 2009, Desoto Memorial Hospital contacted the FCCC to advise of an "acute fracture of the right Ischium and likely the Acetabulum of the Plaintiff's right hip." (Doc. 17 at 13). Defendant Lamour "did not seek emergency medical care untilthe evening of March 14, 2009[.]" (Doc. 17 at 13). Plaintiff was admitted to the Tampa General Hospital on March 14, 2009 (Doc. 17 at 13).
Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages of $100,000 from each defendant and punitive damages "in amounts to be proven at trial" and all future medical expenses associated with any future injuries that may be associated with his hip injuries (Doc. 1 at 11).
Plaintiff has attached numerous documents in support of his amended complaint. The documents relate generally to Plaintiff's classification as a sexually violent predator and his detention in a suicide watch cell. He also attached the medical records relating to his broken hip (Doc. 17-6; Doc. 17-7; Doc. 17-8; Doc. 17-9) and sworn affidavits of FCCC residents William M. Vogt (Doc. 17-5 at 2-3) and Elwood Wise (Doc. 17-5 at 4-5).
In Plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment against Defendant Lamour he generally asserts that it not disputed that he (Plaintiff) suffered fractures to his right hip and that Defendant Lamour did not provide immediate emergency care after he learned of the extent of Plaintiff's injuries (Doc. 74). Therefore, Plaintiff asserts, he has shown that "Defendant Lamour is liable for damages for deliberate indifference to a serious medical need and unnecessary wanton infection of pain[.]" (Doc. 74 at 5).
In support of his motion, Plaintiff relies on and cites to opinions from the Fourth, Fifth, Seven, Tenth, and Eleventh Courts of Appeal as well as a district court opinion from the Middle District of Alabama and a Massachusetts state court case (Doc. 74 at 9-10). Plaintiff also attaches as exhibits Defendant Lamour's answers to interrogatories (Doc. 74-2, "Lamour's Interrog."); Plaintiff's affidavit (Doc. 74-3; "Plaintiff's First Aff."); and a number of Plaintiff's medical records regarding his hip injury (Doc. 74-3).2
In response to Plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment, Defendant Lamour argues that the facts of this case demonstrate that summary judgment should be granted in his (Lamour's) favor (Doc. 80 at 2). Defendant Lamour also addresses and distinguishes each of the cases cited by Plaintiff in support of his claims. Id. at 2-8. In the interests of brevity, Defendant Lamour "adopts the arguments, case law and his own affidavit which were encompassed in the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment" (Doc. 80 at 2).
Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment in which they assert that Defendants Smart, Easter, and Walker used only theamount of force necessary to control Plaintiff who posed a security threat to the FCCC (Doc. 76). Defendant Lamour asserts that Plaintiff was provided with adequate and sound medical care while at the FCCC and that Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that he (Lamour) acted with deliberate indifference to Plaintiff's serious medical needs. Id.
In support of their motion for summary judgment, Defendants attach to the motion: Affidavit of Defendant Smart (Doc. 76-1, "Smart Affidavit"); Affidavit of Howard Easter (Doc. 72-2, "Easter Affidavit"); Affidavit of Eddie Walker (Doc. 76-3, "Walker Affidavit"); Affidavit of Jacques Lamour, M.D. (Doc....
To continue reading
Request your trial