Lucy v. Siddiq et al (INMATE 1)

Filing 82

OPINION. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 7/29/2022. (wcl, )

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION
WILLIAM N. LUCY,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
TAHIR SIDDIQ, et al.,
Defendants.

CIVIL ACTION NO.
2:19cv498-MHT
(WO)

OPINION
Pursuant
plaintiff,

to
a

42

U.S.C.

state

§

inmate,

1983

and

filed

Alabama
this

law,

lawsuit

contending, inter alia, that, when he was transferred
to Bullock Correctional Facility from another prison,
the pain medications he had previously been allowed to
keep on his person were confiscated; that he was made
to pay a copay to see a medical provider repeatedly in
order

to

obtain

the

pain

medication

he

previously

received without having to do so; that the defendants
conspired with each other to keep his pain medication
from him and to defraud him by charging him copays;

that the defendants were deliberately indifferent to
his serious medical need for pain medication and other
treatment; and that they inflicted emotional distress
on him and committed malpractice.

This lawsuit is now

before the court on the recommendation of the United
States Magistrate Judge that (a) defendants' motions
for

summary

federal

judgment

claims,

jurisdiction

(b)

over

be

granted

the

his

as

to

plaintiffs’

court

decline

to

exercise

state-law

claims,

and

(c)

state-law claims be dismissed without prejudice.
before

the

court

are

recommendation.
review

of

plaintiff’s
magistrate

plaintiff’s

After

the

an

record,

objections
judge’s

objections

independent

the

should

court
be

recommendation

and

to

the
Also
the

de

novo

concludes

that

overruled
adopted

as

and

the

to

the

result, but for somewhat different reasons.
First,

the

court

recommendation

to

findings

plaintiff’s

that

the

declines
extent

it

medical
2

to
makes
care

adopt

the

affirmative
was

at

all

relevant times delivered in a timely and appropriate
manner

and

that

delayed.
court

Such

must

plaintiff
genuine

medical
findings

answer
has

on

of

go

enough

material

was

beyond

summary

submitted

dispute

care

never
the

denied

or

question

the

judgment--whether

the

evidence

fact.

to

show

Furthermore,

a

the

court does not necessarily agree that the record is
sufficient to reach those findings.
Second,

the

recommendation

to

court
the

declines
extent

it

to

adopt

relies

on

the
the

“self-serving” nature of plaintiff’s sworn statements.
“An affidavit cannot be conclusory, ..., but nothing in
Rule 56 (or, for that matter, in the Federal Rules of
Civil

Procedure)

self-serving.”
857

(11th

litigant's

Cir.

prohibits

an

affidavit

from

being

United States v. Stein, 881 F.3d 853,
2018)

(citations

self-serving

statements

omitted).
based

on

“[A]
personal

knowledge or observation can defeat summary judgment.”
Id.
3

Finally, while this assertion does not change the
outcome of the motions for summary judgment, to the
extent the recommendation accepts the assertion made by
two of the defendants in their affidavits that Naproxen
500 mg is a “controlled substance”--which is not true
under federal law or under the commonly used definition
of that phrase--the court does not adopt or rely upon
it.*

* The relevant defendants and defense counsel have
since submitted affidavits attesting that, by using the
term “controlled substance,” they did not mean to
suggest that Naproxen 500 mg is a controlled substance
under federal law, but instead that the prisoners were
not allowed to keep the medications on their person.
See Supplemental Affidavit of Tahir Siddiq, M.D. (Doc.
78-1); Supplemental Affidavit of Philip Piggott (Doc.
78-2); Supplemental Affidavit of Treasa Krauel (Hakel)
(Doc. 80-1). The court finds it surprising, to say the
least, that licensed medical personnel would use the
phrase “controlled substance” so loosely, given that
they are subject to stringent regulations related to
the
provision
of
federally
regulated
controlled
substances and surely know how the phrase is typically
defined.
Defense counsel is warned to be more careful in his
and his client’s use of such terminology in future
4

An appropriate judgment will be entered.
DONE, this the 29th day of June, 2022.
/s/ Myron H. Thompson
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

litigation, and to ensure that his clients carefully
review any affidavits before signing them.
5