McLaughlin v. United States of America et al
Filing
57
ORDER granting 39 --motion to dismiss/for summary judgment; directing the Clerk to ENTER JUDGMENT, to TERMINATE any pending motion, and to CLOSE the case. Signed by Judge Steven D. Merryday on 3/17/2014. (BK)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
OCALA DIVISION
DEMETRIUS McLAUGHLIN,
Plaintiff,
v.
CASE NO. 5:12-cv-375-Oc-23PRL
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
et al.,
Defendants.
____________________________________/
ORDER
On March 11, 2004, in United States v. McLaughlin, Middle District of Florida
Case No. 8:03-cr-226-T-17, a jury found Demetrius McLaughlin guilty of conspiracy
to manufacture fifty grams or more of methamphetamine and guilty of possessing or
knowingly distributing pseudoephedrine for use in the manufacture of
methamphetamine. McLaughlin serves a life sentence. (Doc. 233 in Case No.
03-cr-226)
In his second amended complaint (Doc. 19), McLaughlin alleges that he suffers
from syphilis; that the syphilis has caused pain in his left arm, chest, and shoulder;
that the defendants withheld treatment (Doc. 19, pg. 12); and that the defendants’
inadequate medical care violates McLaughlin’s Eighth Amendment rights.
McLaughlin seeks (a) compensatory damages, (b) punitive damages, and (c) an
injunction directing the administration of medical tests and medication.
The defendants move (Doc. 39) to dismiss or for summary judgment.
McLaughlin responds. (Doc. 51)
Discussion
Personal Jurisdiction
Defendants Harrell Watts and Ray Holt claim a lack of personal jurisdiction
and argue for dismissal. Watts is the Inmate Appeals Administrator of the Bureau of
Prisons (BOP) and maintains an office in Washington, D.C. Holt is the former
Regional Director for the Southeast Region of the BOP in Atlanta, Georgia. “A
plaintiff seeking the exercise of personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant
bears the initial burden of alleging in the complaint sufficient facts to make out a
prima facie case of jurisdiction.” United Techs. Corp. v. Mazer, 556 F.3d 1260, 1274
(11th Cir. 2009) (citing Posner v. Essex Ins. Co., Ltd., 178 F.3d 1209, 1214 (11th Cir.
1999)); Polskie Linie Oceaniczne v. Seasafe Transp. A/X, 795 F.2d 968, 972 (11th Cir.
2002).
McLaughlin shows no tie to Florida that demonstrates personal jurisdiction
over Watts or Holt. “The mere fact that federal government officials enforce federal
laws and policies . . . on a nationwide basis is not sufficient in and of itself to confer
personal jurisdiction in a lawsuit which seeks money damages against those same
-2-
government officials in their individual capacities.” Wag-Aero, Inc. v. United States,
837 F. Supp. 1479, 1485 (E.D. Wis. 1993), aff’d 35 F.3d 569 (7th Cir. 1994) (citing
Stafford v. Briggs, 444 U.S. 527, 543-45 (1980)).
Insufficient Service of Process
Service was returned unexecuted as to defendants Joaquin Montolio, Mark
Tidwell, Ulises Vargas, and Jason Terris. These defendants are not properly before
the court. (Docs. 26, 27, 28, 29) “Service of process is a jurisdictional requirement:
a court lacks jurisdiction over the person of a defendant when that defendant has not
been served." Pardazi v. Cullman Med. Ctr., 896 F.2d 1313, 1317 (11th Cir. 1990).
Accordingly, the court lacks in personam jurisdiction over these defendants for lack
of proper service. An order directing service is unwarranted, however, because other
circumstances warrant dismissal.
Official Capacity Claims
To the extent McLaughlin raises these claims against the defendants in their
official capacity, the claims are against the United States and they are not cognizable.
Sovereign immunity protects the United States from suit absent waiver. United States
v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584, 586 (1941). The United States has not waived sovereign
immunity from liability for an award of damages arising from an alleged violation of
the Constitution. FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 485-86 (1994).
Bivens claim
-3-
McLaughlin claims that the defendants violated his Eighth Amendment rights
by failing to treat him for syphilis. To warrant relief under the Eighth Amendment
McLaughlin must show that the defendants acted with deliberate indifference to a
serious medical need. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976); Farrow v. West, 320 F.3d
1235 (11th Cir. 2003). A plaintiff must show (1) that he had an “objectively serious
medical need” Farrow, 320 F.3d at 1243 (citing Taylor v. Adams, 221 F.3d 1254, 1257
(11th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1077 (2001)), and (2) that the defendant acted
with an attitude of “deliberate indifference” toward rendering treatment to the serious
medical need. Farrow, 320 F.3d at 1235 (quoting Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825
(1994)). Deliberate indifference is a state of mind more egregious and culpable than
mere negligence. Estelle, 429 U.S. at 104-06. Conduct that results from accidental
inadequacy, that arises from negligence in diagnosis or treatment, or that constitutes
medical malpractice under state law does not constitute deliberate indifference.
Taylor, 221 F.3d at 1258. Medical treatment or the lack of medical treatment violates
the Eighth or Fourteenth Amendment only when “‘so grossly incompetent,
inadequate, or excessive as to shock the conscience or to be intolerable to
fundamental fairness.’” Faison v. Rosado, 129 Fed. App’x. 490, 491 (11th Cir. 2005)
(unpublished) (quoting Harris v. Thigpen, 941 F.2d 1495, 1501 (11th Cir.1991)).
McLaughlin fails to show that any alleged lack of medical treatment was “so
grossly incompetent, inadequate, or excessive as to shock the conscience or to be
-4-
intolerable to fundamental fairness.” The defendants submit the declaration of
Dr. Olga Grajales, Clinical Director at FCC Coleman. Dr. Grajales states that
McLaughlin was tested four separate times for syphilis, that each test result “was
negative for syphilis,” and that McLaughlin “does not have a current or past
infection for syphilis.” (Doc. 39, Ex. 2, Declaration and Certification of Records by
Dr. Olga.) Defendants Delalamon and Lee also examined and treated McLaughlin
for his complaints of pain in his left shoulder, arm, and chest. (Doc. 39, Ex. 2, 4, 5).
Medical professionals have examined and treated McLaughlin for his medical
conditions, and McLaughlin provides no evidence to the contrary.
McLaughlin fails to demonstrate that the defendants violated his constitutional
rights and fails to demonstrate that the individual defendants are not entitled to
qualified immunity. Qualified immunity attaches (1) if a defendant acted within the
scope of his discretionary authority when the allegedly wrongful acts occurred and
(2) if the plaintiff violated clearly established law based upon objective standards.
See, e.g., Zeigler v. Jackson, 716 F.2d 847, 849 (11th Cir. 1983).
No party questions that at the time pertinent to McLaughlin’s claims, the
defendants were acting within the scope of their discretionary authority.
Consequently, McLaughlin must demonstrate that the defendants violated clearly
established law.
Absolute Immunity
-5-
Defendant Carver is a physician at FCC Coleman and an officer with the
United States Public Health Service (“PHS”). (Doc. 39, Ex. 6). Carver is entitled to
absolute immunity because Section 233(a) of the Public Health Services Act “grants
absolute immunity to PHS officers and employees for actions arising out of the
performance of medical functions within the scope of their employment by barring all
actions against them for such conduct."
FTCA claim
The Federal Tort Claims Act provides a limited waiver of sovereign immunity
for actions against the United States involving “the negligent or wrongful act or
omission of any employee of the Government while acting within the scope of his
office or employment, under circumstances where the United States, if a private
person, would be liable to the claimant in accordance with the law of the place where
the act or omission occurred.” Tisdale v. United States, 62 F.3d 1367, 1370-71 (11th
Cir. 1995) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)). McLaughlin’s FTCA claim must fail
because McLaughlin provides no evidence that the defendants were negligent in
providing treatment. The tort claim is meritless.
Injunctive Relief
Entitlement to injunctive relief from a constitutional violation first requires
McLaughlin to establish the fact of a violation. A plaintiff must demonstrate
(1) actual success on the merits of the claim; (2) irreparable injury unless the
injunction issues; (3) that the threatened injury to the movant outweighs whatever
-6-
damage the proposed injunction may cause the opposing party; and, in some
instances, (4) that the injunction, if issued, would not adversely affect the public
interest. Siegel v. LePore, 234 F.3d 1163, 1176, 1213 (11th Cir. 2000). Because
McLaughlin fails to demonstrate a violation of a federal right, an injunction is
unnecessary to “correct” that right. McLaughlin’s request for injunctive relief is
meritless.
Conclusion
Accordingly, the defendants’ motion to dismiss or for summary judgment
(Doc. 39) is GRANTED. The action is DISMISSED as to defendants Harrell Watts,
Ray Holt, Joaquin Montolio, Mark Tidwell, Ulises Vargas, and Jason Terris.
Summary judgment is granted in favor of the United States of America, the Bureau
of Prisons, FCC Coleman - USP I, Robert Carver, M. Delalmon, FNU Lee, and
Tamyra Jarvis and against Demetrius McLaughlin. The Clerk is instructed (1) to
enter judgment for each defendant and against the plaintiff, (2) to terminate any
pending motion, and (3) to close the case.
ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, on March 17, 2014.
-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?