Kister v. Quality Correctional Health Care et al
Filing
77
MEMORANDUM OPINION; The Court hereby VACATES its previous 75 Memorandum Opinion and enters this MEMORANDUM OPINION in its place. Signed by Chief Judge Karon O Bowdre on 10/3/2018. (JLC)
FILED
2018 Oct-03 AM 10:21
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
NORTHEASTERN DIVISION
JOHN ADREW KISTER,
Plaintiff,
v.
QUALITY CORRECTIONAL
HEALTH CARE, et al.,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 5:16-cv-01406-KOB-HNJ
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
The court VACATES its Memorandum Opinion of October 2, 2018 (doc.
75) and enters this Memorandum Opinion in its place:
The magistrate judge entered a report on March 12, 2018, recommending all
claims in this action be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915A(b)(1) for failing to state a claim upon which relief can be granted , except
the failure to provide adequate pain relief claim against defendants Quality
Correctional Health Care, Dr. Raynon Andrews, Dr. Johnny Bates, Registered
Nurse Charlotte Turner, Registered Nurse Nadine Clopton, Sheriff Ana Franklin,
Warden Leon Bradley, Chief Corley, and Jail Administrator Larry Berzet and the
retaliation claim against Sheriff Franklin and Dr. Bates. The magistrate judge also
recommended that the court dismiss from this action defendants Nurse Nick
Barton, Dr. Anaquansi, and the Morgan County Commission. (Doc. 67).
The plaintiff filed objections to the report and recommendation on March
21, 2018. (Docs. 68 & 69). The plaintiff objects to the dismissal of his psychiatric
care claims, asserting the new allegation that he is being denied effective
psychiatric medications because of the jail’s “formulary” which allows only for
medications which cause him “intolerable side effects.” (Doc. 68 at 4-5). He
contends that the use of a formulary results in denying or delaying treatment “for
non-medical reasons,” and that he is being denied appropriate and effective
medications solely because the medications are not on the formulary. (Id. at 5).
However, the only “intolerable side effect” identified by the plaintiff is
“penile pain,” and he acknowledges he “can tolerate the psych meds if the [penile]
pain is treated.” (Doc. 68 at 4). In other words, he contends that “[b]y deliberately
not treating [his] pain, they are also denying me effective psych meds (if
prescribed) due to those meds increasing my untreated pain.” (Id.). These
statements show that the plaintiff has not been denied effective psychiatric
medications, but only that he has been offered medications that allegedly
exacerbate a physical condition that allegedly remains untreated by the other
defendants. 1
1
This side effect (penile pain), and the alleged failure to adequately treat it, is the subject of the
claims proceeding against the other medical defendants.
2
This conflict alone does not demonstrate that the psychiatric defendants
have acted with “an attitude of deliberate indifference” towards his psychiatric
needs. Absent such a showing, his complaint fails to establish the subjective
component of an Eighth Amendment claim. Taylor v. Adams 221 F.3d 1254, 1258
(11th Cir. 2000). The court will OVERRULE the plaintiff’s objections.
Furthermore, the plaintiff’s contention that the psychiatric defendants have
“deviated from professional standards” is not sufficient to state a constitutional
claim. (Doc. 68 at 7). “Medical malpractice does not become a constitutional
violation merely because the victim is a prisoner.” Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97,
106 (1976). Indeed, medical treatment violates the Eighth Amendment only when
it is so grossly incompetent, inadequate or excessive as to shock the conscience or
to be intolerable to fundamental fairness. Harris v. Thigpen, 941 F.2d 1495, 1505
(11th Cir. 1991).
The plaintiff’s objection to the dismissal of the Morgan County Commission
(doc. 68 at 10) lacks merit and the court will OVERRULE it. The plaintiff argues
that the Commission has a duty to fund the jail. While a true statement, he has not
plausibly alleged that the denial of medical care was the result of funding issues.
Citing Ancata v. Prison Health Services, 769 F.2d 700 (11th Cir 1985), the
plaintiff makes the additional argument that the Commission is responsible for
Quality Correctional Health Care’s (QCHC) “no narcotics” policy, because the
3
Commission contracted with QCHC to provide care at the jail. (Doc. 68 at 11).
However, in Anacata, a Florida statute made the county directly responsible for the
healthcare of prisoners in county jails. 769 F.2d at 705 n. 7. But in Alabama,
counties “have no duties with respect to the daily operation of county jails and no
authority to dictate how the jails are run.” Turquitt v. Jefferson Cnty., Ala., 137
F.3d 1285, 1291 (11th Cir. 1998). For purposes of § 1983 liability, “[a] local
government may be held liable … only for acts for which it is actually
responsible.” Id. at 1287 (citing Pembaur v. City of Cincinnati, 475 U.S. 469, 47980 (1986)). So a federal court “must ‘respect state and local law's allocation of
policymaking authority,’ and not “assume that final policymaking authority lies in
some entity other than that in which state law places it.” Turquitt, 137 F.3d at
1288) (quoting McMillian v. Johnson, 88 F.3d 1573,1577 (11th Cir. 1996)).
Because an Alabama Sheriff’s authority over the operation of a county jail is
“totally independent” of the county commission, and the Sheriff acts exclusively
for the state in that capacity, the Morgan County Commission has no authority to
promulgate policy at the Morgan County Jail and so cannot be held liable under
authority of Ancata, which applied Florida law. See Turquitt, 137 F.3d at 1288,
1290.
Subsequent to his objections, the plaintiff submitted a motion to supplement
his amended complaint with allegations regarding acts or omissions during the
4
period from August 23, 2016, to August 31, 2018. (Doc. 73). The court will
GRANT the motion to the extent that his additional allegations (doc. 74) may be
used to supplement his amended complaint (doc. 28). But, the supplemented facts
do not change the results of this court’s review of the magistrate judge’s initial
screening.
In the supplemental complaint (doc. 74), the plaintiff continues to allege that
he has not been treated for his penile pain. The magistrate judge has recommended
that this claim be allowed to proceed against certain of the defendants. These
supplemental allegations do not change this recommendation.
The supplemental complaint also alleges the plaintiff began receiving
additional psychiatric medications on June 13, 2018, and has been receiving
psychological therapy since June 8, 2018. (Doc. 74 at 2). He contends he was told
that one of the medications was “”on the formulary the entire time, just not
prescribed for [him].” (Id.). The plaintiff argues that these facts demonstrate he
was in need of these medications and therapy all along. (Id.).
But, as noted in the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation,
“disputes over delays in treatment (without more), unsuccessful treatment, or even
negligence or medical malpractice do not meet the standard of deliberate
indifference by a state actor.” Massey v. Quality Corr. Healthcare, Inc., No. 2:12cv-101-WHA, 2015 WL 852054, *2 (M.D. Ala. Feb. 26, 2015). Additionally,
5
mere disputes between an inmate and medical staff as to treatment or diagnoses do
not give rise to a cause of action under the Eighth Amendment. Harris, 941 F.2d
at 1505. These additional allegations do not show the punitive intent necessary to
state a constitutional claim. In fact, they continue to demonstrate ongoing attempts
by the jail medical staff to treat his psychiatric issues, belying any suggestion that
the defendants have displayed subjective indifference to his needs.
Finally, the plaintiff also alleges he was again placed in “medical
observation” from January 28 to January 31, 2018, in retaliation for his complaints
about medication side effects. (Doc. 74 at 2-3). The magistrate judge
recommended the plaintiff’s retaliation claim proceed against Sheriff Franklin and
Dr. Bates, and these allegations do nothing to necessitate a change in that
recommendation or the inclusion of additional defendants.
Having carefully reviewed and considered de novo all the materials in the
court file, including the report and recommendation, the plaintiff’s objections, and
the supplemental complaint, the court ADOPTS the magistrate judge’s report and
ACCEPTS his recommendation. The court finds that all the plaintiff’s claims in
this matter are due to be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915A(b) for failing to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, except the
failure to provide adequate pain relief claim against defendants Quality
Correctional Health Care, Dr. Raynon Andrews, Dr. Johnny Bates, Registered
6
Nurse Charlotte Turner, Registered Nurse Nadine Clopton, Sheriff Ana Franklin,
Warden Leon Bradley, Chief Corley, and Jail Administrator Larry Berzet and the
retaliation claim against Sheriff Franklin and Dr. Bates; and the defendants
identified as Nurse Nick Barton, Dr. Anaquansi, and the Morgan County
Commission are due to be dismissed from this action.
The court further ORDERS that the remaining claims are REFERRED to
the magistrate judge for further proceedings.
The court will enter a separate Order.
DONE and ORDERED this 3nd day of October, 2018.
____________________________________
KARON OWEN BOWDRE
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
7
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?