Keith Goodman v. Gene Johnson

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [999015847-2] Originating case number: 1:11-cv-00079-GBL-IDD Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999100976]. Mailed to: Keith D. Goodman. [12-7990]

Appeal: 12-7990

Doc: 16

Filed: 05/03/2013

Pg: 1 of 10

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-7990

KEITH D. GOODMAN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
GENE M. JOHNSON; HAROLD W. CLARKE; JOHN JABE; A. DAVID
ROBINSON;
FRED
SHILLING;
KIM
RUNION;
J.
LAFOON;
Q.
BIRCHETTE; G. F. SIVELS; CASSANDRA TAYLOR; C. MAYES; C.
BAILEY; HARVARD STEPHENS, Doctor,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
G. ROBINSON; ELTON BROWN,
PRISON HEALTH SERVICES,

Doctor;

KRYM;

SPRUILL,

Doctor;

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District
Judge. (1:11-cv-00079-GBL-IDD)

Submitted:

April 29, 2013

Decided:

May 3, 2013

Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded by unpublished
per curiam opinion.

Appeal: 12-7990

Doc: 16

Filed: 05/03/2013

Pg: 2 of 10

Keith D. Goodman, Appellant Pro Se.
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Appellees.

Christopher Davies Supino,
Richmond, Virginia, for

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 12-7990

Doc: 16

Filed: 05/03/2013

Pg: 3 of 10

PER CURIAM:
Keith D. Goodman appeals the district court’s orders
dismissing and granting summary judgment to the defendants on
his claims alleging deliberate indifference to his medical needs
and violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C.
§§ 12101-12213 (2006) (“ADA”).

Generally, Goodman’s claims stem

from the Virginia Department of Corrections’ (“VDOC”) refusal to
provide

him

correct

his

with

contact

impaired

lenses,

of

Goodman

vision.

instead

eyeglasses,

alleges

that

to
his

eyeglasses cause him severe headaches and that prison officials
have failed to adequately respond to his complaints due to their
misapplication of a VDOC policy that restricts prisoners from
receiving

contact

lenses

(“contacts policy”).

absent

a

doctor’s

prescription

We affirm in part, vacate in part, and

remand.
I.

Deliberate indifference
To

succeed

on

his

claims

of

constitutionally

inadequate medical care, Goodman was required to allege acts or
omissions

on

the

part

of

prison

officials

harmful

enough

to

constitute deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs.
Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976).

Meeting this high

standard requires a showing that “the defendants actually knew
of and disregarded a substantial risk of serious injury . . . or
that they actually knew of and ignored a . . . serious need for
3

Appeal: 12-7990

Doc: 16

Filed: 05/03/2013

medical care.”

Pg: 4 of 10

Young v. City of Mt. Ranier, 238 F.3d 567, 575

(4th Cir. 2001).
a. Dismissals for failure to state a claim
Assuming without deciding that Goodman suffers from a
sufficiently

serious

medical

need,

we

consider

first

the

district court’s dismissal of Goodman’s claims under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A(b)(1) (2006) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).

Our review

is de novo, and a complaint should not be dismissed for failure
to

state

a

claim

unless,

“after

accepting

all

well-pleaded

allegations in the plaintiff’s complaint as true and drawing all
reasonable

factual

inferences

from

those

facts

in

the

plaintiff’s favor, it appears certain that the plaintiff cannot
prove any set of facts in support of his claim entitling him to
relief.”

Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 244 (4th

Cir. 1999); see Aziz v. Alcolac, Inc., 658 F.3d 388, 391 (4th
Cir. 2011); Slade v. Hampton Rds. Reg’l Jail, 407 F.3d 243, 248
(4th Cir. 2005).
1. Dr. Krym, Dr. Elton Brown, and Dr. Spruill
Liberally
complaint,
dismissed

we

construing

conclude

Goodman’s

that

claims

the
the

of

allegations
district

deliberate

in

court

Goodman’s
prematurely

indifference

against

Dr. Krym, Dr. Elton Brown, and Dr. Spruill, each of whom have
treated Goodman’s vision problems.
prisoner’s

accusation

that

the
4

As we recently discussed, a

care

he

is

receiving

is

not

Appeal: 12-7990

Doc: 16

adequate

to

Filed: 05/03/2013

treat

his

Pg: 5 of 10

medical

deliberate indifference.

needs

may

support

a

claim

of

De’Lonta v. Johnson, 708 F.3d 520, 526

(4th Cir. 2013) (“[A] prisoner does not enjoy a constitutional
right to the treatment of his or her choice, the treatment a
prison facility does provide must nevertheless be adequate to
address the prisoner’s serious medical need.”).

Although such

claims may, on closer inspection, amount to nothing more than a
prisoner’s

disagreement

with

his

diagnosis

or

prescribed

treatment, prison doctors violate the Eighth Amendment if they
decline

to

provide

the

level

of

care

they

deem

medically

necessary or fail to adequately address a prisoner’s complaints
that the care he is receiving is not effective.

See Miltier v.

Beorn, 896 F.2d 848, 853 (4th Cir. 1990) (treating physician may
be deliberately indifferent where he fails to provide level of
care he believes is necessary); Sosebee v. Murphy, 797 F.2d 179,
182 (4th Cir. 1986) (failure to respond to an inmate’s known
medical needs raises an inference of deliberate indifference to
those needs).
Here, Goodman complains that each of his doctors has
refused to adequately address his complaints that his eyeglasses
cause him headaches, ostensibly due to their reliance on the
contacts policy and the direction of their superiors.

Because

we find no support for the district court’s conclusion that such
reliance, if true, insulates Goodman’s doctors from liability,
5

Appeal: 12-7990

Doc: 16

Filed: 05/03/2013

Pg: 6 of 10

we vacate the portion of the district court’s order dismissing
Goodman’s claims against Dr. Krym, Dr. Brown, and Dr. Spruill. *
2. G. Robinson, C. Mayes, Kimberly Runion, and Prison
Health Services
Having

carefully

reviewed

Goodman’s

complaint,

we

conclude that the district court properly found that Goodman
failed to sufficiently allege claims of deliberate indifference
against

G.

Robinson,

C.

Health Services (“PHS”).

Mayes,

Kimberly

Runion,

and

Prison

See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,

678 (2009) (complaint must contain “sufficient factual matter,
accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible
on its face”) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Disregarding

Goodman’s

conclusory

allegations,

his

complaint failed to allege facts from which one might infer that
G. Robinson, C. Mayes, or Kimberly Runion improperly interfered
with

Goodman’s

Goodman’s
treatment.

receipt

doctors

were

of

contact
not

lenses

providing

or

was

him

aware

with

that

adequate

See Iko v. Shreve, 535 F.3d 225, 242 (4th Cir. 2008)

(“If a prisoner is under the care of medical experts . . ., a
non-medical

prison

official

will

*

generally

be

justified

in

By this disposition we make no determination regarding the
underlying merit of Goodman’s claims.
We simply conclude that
Goodman’s complaint raised allegations against his various
doctors sufficient to survive preliminary review under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A(b)(1).

6

Appeal: 12-7990

Doc: 16

Filed: 05/03/2013

Pg: 7 of 10

believing that the prisoner is in capable hands.”).

Similarly,

assuming without deciding that PHS is properly subject to suit
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006), Goodman failed to allege facts
sufficient to indicate a likelihood that PHS has an official
policy or custom of contravening the contacts policy and denying
prisoners access to contact lenses in contravention of their
doctors’ recommendation.

See Weller v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs.,

901

Cir.

F.2d

387,

398

(4th

1990)

(allegations

of

conduct

violating official policy are not sufficient to establish that
conduct occurred pursuant to official policy).

Accordingly, we

affirm the dismissal of Goodman’s claims against G. Robinson,
Mayes, Runion, and PHS.
b.

Summary judgment
Turning to Goodman’s challenge to the district court’s

grant of summary judgment to Gene Johnson, Harold Clarke, John
Jabe,

Fred

Schilling,

and

Dr.

Harvard

Stephens

(collectively

“administrative defendants”), our review is de novo.

Bonds v.

Leavitt, 629 F.3d 369, 380 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 132 S. Ct.
398 (2011).

Summary judgment is appropriate where “there is no

genuine issue as to any material fact and the movant is entitled
to judgment as a matter of law.”

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).

“At the summary judgment stage, facts must be viewed
in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party only if there
is a genuine dispute as to those facts.”
7

Scott v. Harris, 550

Appeal: 12-7990

U.S.

Doc: 16

372,

Filed: 05/03/2013

380

(2007)

Pg: 8 of 10

(internal

quotation

marks

omitted).

A

district court should grant summary judgment unless a reasonable
jury

could

return

a

evidence presented.

verdict

for

the

nonmoving

party

on

the

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S.

242, 249 (1986).

An otherwise properly supported motion for

summary judgment will not be defeated by the existence of any
factual dispute; only disputes over facts that might affect the
outcome of the suit under governing law will properly preclude
summary judgment.
allegations

do

Id. at 248-49.

not

suffice,

“Conclusory or speculative

nor

does

a

mere

scintilla

of

evidence in support of” the nonmoving party’s case.

Thompson v.

Potomac

Cir.

Elec.

Power

Co.,

312

F.3d

645,

649

(4th

2002)

(internal quotation marks omitted).
We conclude that the district court did not err in
finding that Goodman failed to produce evidence, sufficient to
survive

summary

judgment,

that

the

administrative

defendants,

either personally or through prison policy, interfered with his
receipt of proper medical care.

Instead, the materials Goodman

submitted in opposition to summary judgment indicate just the
opposite.

Accordingly, we affirm the grant of summary judgment

in favor of the administrative defendants.
II.

ADA
We

dismissed

also

conclude

Goodman’s

claim

that

the

district

under

the

ADA.

8

court

properly

Assuming

Goodman

Appeal: 12-7990

Doc: 16

Filed: 05/03/2013

Pg: 9 of 10

suffers from a qualifying disability, he failed to allege facts
indicating that, due to his disability, he has been deprived of
benefits for which he was otherwise qualified.

See Simmons v.

Navajo Cnty., 609 F.3d 1011, 1021-22 (9th Cir. 2010) (prisoner
could

not

establish

violation

of

ADA

where

there

was

no

indication that his disability was a motivating factor in his
exclusion from prison programs and because “[t]he ADA prohibits
discrimination because of disability, not inadequate treatment
for disability”); Fitzgerald v. Corrs. Corp. of Am., 403 F.3d
1134,

1144

violation

(10th
of

ADA

Cir.

2005)

based

on

(prisoner
allegation

failed
of

to

establish

improper

medical

treatment because he would not have been otherwise eligible for
treatment absent his disability).

Accordingly, we affirm the

dismissal of Goodman’s ADA claim.
III. Appointment of counsel
Last, Goodman challenges that district court’s denial
of his motion to appoint counsel.
discretion.

We, however, find no abuse of

Whisenant v. Yuam, 739 F.2d 160, 163 (4th Cir.

1984) (refusal to appoint counsel in civil case reviewed for
abuse of discretion), abrogated on other grounds by Mallard v.
U.S. Dist. Court for the S. Dist. of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296 (1989).
As

the

district

court

explained,

counsel

should

be

appointed in civil cases only under “exceptional circumstances.”
Whisenant,

739

F.2d

at

163.

The
9

existence

of

exceptional

Appeal: 12-7990

Doc: 16

Filed: 05/03/2013

Pg: 10 of 10

circumstances turns on the complexity of a party’s claims and
his ability to present them.
do

not

present

unduly

Id.

complex

Because Goodman’s allegations
factual

or

legal

issues,

and

Goodman has not evidenced an inability to adequately pursue his
claims,

we

conclude

properly denied.

that

his

motion

to

appoint

counsel

was

For similar reasons, we also deny Goodman’s

pending motion to appoint appellate counsel.
Based on the foregoing, we vacate the district court’s
dismissal of Goodman’s claims of deliberate indifference against
Dr. Brown, Dr. Spruill, and Dr. Krym and affirm the remainder of
the district court’s judgment.
for

further

dispense

consideration

with

oral

We remand to the district court

consistent

argument

because

with
the

this

opinion.

facts

and

We
legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED IN PART,
VACATED IN PART,
AND REMANDED

10