Mertens v. State of Alabama et al (INMATE 2)

Filing 39

MEMORANDUM OPINION - Based on its review of the record in this case, the Court finds no misstatements of law in the magistrate judges report and no plain error in the magistrate judges factual findings regarding Mr. Mertenss medical treatment during the 17-day period in the Franklin County Jail or Officer Quallss alleged retaliatory conduct. Therefore, the Court adopts the magistrate judges report and accepts his recommendation to grant the defendants motions for summary judgment on those claims. Signed by Judge Madeline Hughes Haikala on 4/26/2019. (KEK)

FILED
2019 Apr-26 AM 10:58
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
WESTERN DIVISION
ROCKY JOE MERTENS,
Plaintiff,
v.
STATE OF ALABAMA, et al.,
Defendants.

}
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
}

Case No.: 7:18-cv-0654-MHH-JEO

MEMORANDUM OPINION
This is an Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference case. The Middle
District of Alabama transferred Mr. Mertens’s lawsuit to this district in April 2018.
(Docs. 19, 20). Mr. Mertens initially complained that a host of authorities and
nurses at Franklin County Jail, Kilby Correctional Facility, and Bibb County
Correctional Facility delayed treatment for two broken bones in his hand for
approximately eight months and only gave him ibuprofen for pain. (Doc. 2, pp. 23).
Mr. Mertens later amended his complaint. (Doc. 17). In his amended
complaint, Mr. Mertens asserts that while he was incarcerated in Franklin County
Jail, medical treatment for the broken bones in his hand was delayed for 17 days,
and he contends that the Alabama Department of Corrections subsequently delayed
his medical treatment for another seven months. (Doc. 17). The magistrate judge

assigned to this case dismissed Mr. Mertens’s claim against the Alabama
Department of Corrections. (Doc. 21, p. 3, n. 1).1 Therefore, Mr. Mertens’s claim
proceeded only with respect to the medical treatment he received over the course
of 17 days while he was in the Franklin County Jail. (Doc. 36, p. 6, n. 7). Mr.
Mertens also contends that jail officials retaliated against him because he
complained about his medical treatment. (Docs. 2, 27, 31).
The defendants filed special reports (Docs. 29, 30), which the magistrate
judge treated as motions for summary judgment (Doc. 34). Mr. Mertens opposed
summary judgment and, alternatively, requested a hearing to show the Court his
“permanently damaged hand.” (Doc. 35, p. 4). Mr. Mertens provided an extensive
statement of facts in support of his complaint, (Docs. 2-1, 2-2), and he filed two
affidavits in support of his claims (Docs. 28, 32).
On November 5, 2018, the magistrate judge recommended that the Court
grant summary judgment in the defendants’ favor on Mr. Mertens’s deliberate
indifference and retaliation claims. (Doc. 36, p. 18). The magistrate judge advised
Mr. Mertens of his right to file specific written objections within 14 days. (Doc.
36, pp. 18-19).
Mr. Mertens did not file objections, but he did file a motion in which he
requested the appointment of counsel. (Doc. 37). In the motion, Mr. Mertens

1

The Court finds no error in the dismissal of the Alabama Department of Corrections.
2

asked for help with his deliberate indifference and retaliation claims. (Doc. 37).
The magistrate judge denied Mr. Mertens’s request on November 21, 2018. (Doc.
38).
A district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or part, the findings
or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). A
district court reviews legal conclusions in a report de novo and reviews for plain
error factual findings to which no objection is made. Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F.2d
776, 779 n. 9 (11th Cir. 1993); see also LoConte v. Dugger, 847 F.2d 745, 749
(11th Cir. 1988); Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 Fed. Appx. 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006).
Based on its review of the record in this case, the Court finds no
misstatements of law in the magistrate judge’s report and no plain error in the
magistrate judge’s factual findings regarding Mr. Mertens’s medical treatment
during the 17-day period in the Franklin County Jail or Officer Qualls’s alleged
retaliatory conduct. Therefore, the Court adopts the magistrate judge’s report and
accepts his recommendation to grant the defendants’ motions for summary
judgment on those claims. Additionally, the Court denies Mr. Mertens’s request
for a hearing to see the permanent damage to his hand because his claim regarding
delayed surgery is not before the Court. If Mr. Mertens still contends that he has
not received the surgical procedure that Dr. Chung allegedly ordered for him

3

months ago (Doc. 17, pp. 3-4), then Mr. Mertens must file a claim against the
proper defendants to pursue the claim.
The Court will issue a separate final judgment consistent with this
memorandum opinion.
DONE and ORDERED this 26th day of April, 2019.

_________________________________
MADELINE HUGHES HAIKALA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4