James Monroe v. Rodey Ingle

Filing

Opinion issued by court as to Appellant Rodey Ingle. Decision: Affirmed. Opinion type: Non-Published. Opinion method: Per Curiam. The opinion is also available through the Court's Opinions page at this link http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions.

Case: 16-16052

Date Filed: 06/29/2017

Page: 1 of 5

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 16-16052
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 6:14-cv-01595-VEH-TMP

JAMES KELLY MONROE,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JOHN GORON,
County Commissioner, et al.,
Defendants,
RODEY INGLE, Sheriff,
Defendant - Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Alabama
________________________
(June 29, 2017)

Case: 16-16052

Date Filed: 06/29/2017

Page: 2 of 5

Before JULIE CARNES, JILL PRYOR, and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

In this interlocutory appeal, Sheriff Rodney Ingle appeals the district court’s
denial of his motion for summary judgment -- a motion based on qualified
immunity -- in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil action alleging deliberate indifference in
violation of the Eighth Amendment. No reversible error has been shown; we
affirm. 1
On 25 July 2014 -- while an inmate at the Fayette County Jail in Fayette,
Alabama -- James Monroe sustained an injury to his finger during an altercation
with another inmate. Monroe was taken to the emergency room at the local
hospital, where he was diagnosed with an open fracture of the finger. The
emergency room doctor prescribed antibiotics and pain medication. The doctor
also instructed Monroe to make a follow-up appointment with an orthopedic
specialist at the University Orthopaedic Clinic and Spine Center (“UOC”).
1

We have jurisdiction to review the district court’s denial of qualified immunity. See Mitchell v.
Forsyth, 105 S. Ct. 2806, 2817 (1985). To the extent, however, that Sheriff Ingle raises
arguments about exhaustion of administrative remedies or about whether Monroe suffered a
physical injury within the meaning of the Prison Litigation Reform Act -- issues unrelated to
qualified immunity and about which no “final decision” has been entered, we lack appellate
jurisdiction to decide those questions and decline to address those arguments on interlocutory
appeal. For background, see Johnson v. Jones, 115 S. Ct. 2151 (1995).

2

Case: 16-16052

Date Filed: 06/29/2017

Page: 3 of 5

On 29 July 2014, jail staff transported Monroe to UOC to have his finger
evaluated by an orthopedist. The parties dispute what happened next. According
to Monroe, Sheriff Ingle -- who was allegedly present at Monroe’s appointment -refused to authorize payment from State or County funds for Monroe’s medical
treatment at UOC. In addition, Monroe -- who says he lacked funds or insurance
to pay for his own medical care -- refused to sign UOC’s paperwork relating to
payment. The record demonstrates that, among other things, UOC required
patients to sign a document accepting full financial responsibility for medical
expenses. As a result of Sheriff Ingle’s refusal to authorize payment for Monroe’s
health care and Monroe’s refusal to sign the financial responsibility forms, UOC
would not evaluate or treat Monroe. Sheriff Ingle then ordered Monroe to be
transported back to the jail without having been seen by an orthopedist.
On 13 August 2014, Monroe filed this pro se civil action. In pertinent part,
Monroe asserted a claim for deliberate indifference against Sheriff Ingle in his
individual capacity.
Upon initial screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the magistrate judge
concluded that Monroe had alleged sufficiently that he “was denied health care
recommended by the emergency room physician arguably because of his inability
to pay.” Because additional factual development was necessary to determine
3

Case: 16-16052

Date Filed: 06/29/2017

Page: 4 of 5

whether Sheriff Ingle’s alleged interference with Monroe’s 29 July appointment
constituted deliberate indifference, the magistrate judge ordered Sheriff Ingle to
file a special report responding to Monroe’s deliberate indifference claim.
Sheriff Ingle’s special report was later construed as a motion for summary
judgment, and was denied. Applying properly the summary judgment standard,
the district court accepted Monroe’s testimony that Sheriff Ingle was present when
Monroe was asked to sign UOC’s financial responsibility forms, that Sheriff Ingle
refused to authorize payment from State or County funds, and that Sheriff Ingle
ordered Monroe to be returned to jail after Monroe refused to sign the forms. On
this record -- and given Supreme Court and Eleventh Circuit case law establishing
that denying or delaying a prisoner necessary medical care based solely on a
prisoner’s inability to pay, or for other non-medical reasons, may constitute
deliberate indifference -- the district court concluded that Sheriff Ingle was
unentitled to summary judgment.
Viewing the evidence and drawing all reasonable inferences in the light most
favorable to Monroe,2 we accept that summary judgment based on qualified

2

We review de novo a district court’s denial of a motion for summary judgment based on
qualified immunity, “drawing all inferences and viewing all of the evidence in a light most
favorable to the nonmoving party.” Gilmore v. Hodges, 738 F.3d 266, 272 (11th Cir. 2013).

4

Case: 16-16052

Date Filed: 06/29/2017

Page: 5 of 5

immunity is not demanded at this stage in the proceedings.3
AFFIRMED.

3

We do not rule out today that qualified immunity might be granted properly later in the
proceedings, as the operative facts are found or as the lack of sufficient admissible evidence to
carry a party’s burden of proof becomes apparent.

5