Patterson v. Santini et al
Filing
42
ORDER. The 24 Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge is accepted. Defendants' 17 Motion to Dismiss is denied. On or before 9/20/2012, defendants shall file a response to the Amended Prisoner Complaint. Plaintiff's 38 , 39 Requests to Submit for Decision are denied as moot. By Judge Philip A. Brimmer on 9/6/12.(mnfsl, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Philip A. Brimmer
Civil Action No. 11-cv-01899-PAB-KLM
GERALD LEE PATTERSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
GEORGE SANTINI, M.D.,
P.A. CAMACHO, and
FIVE JOHN/JANE DOES,
Defendants.
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the Recommendation of the United States
Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix (the “Recommendation”) [Docket No. 24], which
recommends that the Court deny defendants George Santini and Physician Assistant
(“P.A.”) Camacho’s Motion to Dismiss [Docket No. 17].1 On April 11, 2012, defendants
filed timely objections [Docket No. 26] to the Recommendation.
The Recommendation concluded that plaintiff’s complaint plausibly asserted that
defendants’ actions violated plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment rights. Docket No. 24 at
9-12. Specifically, the Recommendation found that, in 1997, medical personnel
recognized that plaintiff’s herniated discs and arthritis neck pain were serious medical
conditions which required surgery. Id. at 9-11. The Recommendation determined that
defendants Santini and Camacho had personal knowledge of plaintiff’s medical
1
The Recommendation contains a detailed statement of the case with which no
party has taken issue.
condition, yet refused to provide plaintiff with adequate medical treatment. Id. at 11-12.
Because a prisoner’s right to adequate medical care was clearly established at the time
of defendants’ actions, the Recommendation concluded that defendants were not
entitled to qualified immunity. Id. at 12.
Defendants object to the Recommendation’s conclusion that plaintiff sufficiently
raised an Eighth Amendment claim. Docket No. 26 at 7-9. Defendants contend that
plaintiff’s complaint mentions only a disagreement between plaintiff and defendants
about the best course of treatment for his medical condition. Defendants also argue
that they were not deliberately indifferent to plaintiff’s medical condition. Moreover,
defendants object to the Recommendation’s liberal reading of the complaint as alleging
a claim for injunctive relief.
Since the filing of the Recommendation, the procedural posture of this case has
significantly changed. On April 16, 2012, the plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint
[Docket No. 27]. This complaint includes many more specific allegations regarding the
plaintiff’s course of treatment for back problems and pain complaints, including
allegations that (a) surgery was previously indicated and ordered to be performed while
plaintiff was incarcerated at FMC Springfield, (b) he was told for the ten years he was
incarcerated in Forest City, Arkansas that the institution does not perform surgery on
inmates, and (c) he has received conflicting diagnoses and information from medical
providers at FPC Florence regarding treatment of pain he is experiencing. Docket No.
27 at 4-5. On April 26, 2012, Magistrate Judge Mix accepted the amended complaint
and ordered defendants to respond to it [Docket No. 29]. However, rather than
responding to the amended complaint, defendants filed a motion to stay the
2
proceedings until the Court determined whether they are entitled to qualified immunity
[Docket No. 32]. Defendants also claimed in the motion to stay that plaintiff had failed
to exhaust his administrative remedies. Id. at 3.
The factual context of plaintiff’s claim is now set forth in the amended complaint,
which, as noted above, has been significantly augmented. Plaintiff alleged some of
these facts in his response to the motion to dismiss, but has also alleged new facts.
Defendants' motion to dismiss is therefore directed at an inoperative, superseded
pleading. See, e.g., Gilles v. United States, 906 F.2d 1386, 1389 (10th Cir. 1990) (“[A]
pleading that has been amended under Rule 15(a) supersedes the pleading it modifies
....”) (internal quotation marks omitted). This alone provides a basis to deny the motion
to dismiss. Moreover, the Court cannot consider the general principles of qualified
immunity stated in the motion to dismiss without reference to the new facts alleged in
the amended complaint. As defendants themselves state in their objections to the
Recommendation, “when conducting a qualified immunity analysis, the Court must
consider the specific factual context of the claim.” Docket No. 26 at 11 (citing Bowling
v. Rector, 584 F.3d 956, 964 (10th Cir. 2009)). Thus, even if the Court considered the
principles of qualified immunity in light of the amended complaint, defendants’ failure to
address the newly alleged facts would lead to the same result – denial of the motion.
Wherefore, it is
ORDERED that the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge [Docket
No. 24] is ACCEPTED for the reasons stated in this Order. It is further
3
ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [Docket No. 17] is DENIED. It is
further
ORDERED that, on or before September 20, 2012, defendants shall file a
response to the Amended Prisoner Complaint [Docket No. 27]. It is further
ORDERED that plaintiff’s Requests to Submit for Decision [Docket Nos. 38, 39]
are DENIED as moot.
DATED September 6, 2012.
BY THE COURT:
s/Philip A. Brimmer
PHILIP A. BRIMMER
United States District Judge
4
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?