Scott v. Vasquez et al

Filing 31

ORDER sustaining pltf's objections as to claims against defts Vasquez, Lappin, and Sera; adopting in part #8 Report and Recommendations; adopting recommendation that claims against defts Bureau of Prisons and FCI Jesup be dismissed; adopting recommendation that claims against defts Chippi, Taratus, and Addira in their official capacities be dismissed. Signed by Judge Lisa G. Wood on 11/30/09. (slt)

In the United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia Brunswick Division
NELSON SCOTT, * * * Plaintiff, * * vs. * * JOSE VASQUEZ, Warden; Dr. CHIPPI; HARLEY LAPPIN, * Director; FEDERAL BUREAU OF * PRISONS; FCI JESUP, GEORGIA; * P.A. TARUTUS; P.A. ADDIRA; and* * JOHN DOE SERA, Regional * Director, * * Defendants. * *

CV 208-145

ORDER Plaintiff Nelson Scott, currently incarcerated at the Low Security Correctional Institution in Butner, North Carolina, filed suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2671 et seq., for civil rights violations and injuries he allegedly sustained while incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institution in Jesup, Georgia ("FCI Jesup"). (Dkt. No. 1.) Plaintiff

asserts that, while mopping a dorm unit floor at FCI Jesup,

he fell and badly injured his finger. Plaintiff claims that he was denied minimally adequate treatment for his injury, and that the medical personnel at F'CI Jesup were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. In addition to various prison medical personnel, Plaintiff named as Defendants Jose Vasquez, former warden at F'CI Jesup; Harley Lappin, Director of the Bureau of Prisons; and John Sera, Regional Director of the Bureau of Prisons. On March 19, 2009, Magistrate Judge James E. Graham issued a Report and Recommendation advising that Plaintiff's claims against Defendants Vasquez, Lappin, and Sera be dismissed. (Dkt. No. 8.) The Magistrate Judge found that Plaintiff failed to allege a causal connection between these supervisors' actions and Plaintiff's alleged constitutional deprivations. Plaintiff filed an Objection. (Dkt. No. 25.) After an independent and de novo review of the entire record, the Court SUSTAINS Plaintiff's Objection. Supervisory officials cannot be held liable under section 1983 on the basis of respondeat superior or vicarious liability. Cottone v. Jenne, 326 F'.3d 1352, 1360 (11th Cir. 2003) . Supervisors can, however, be held
2

liable for their subordinates' constitutional violations on
I

the basis of supervisory liability. Mathews v. Crosby, 480 F'.3d 1265, 1270 (11th Cir. 2007) . Supervisory liability occurs when the supervisor personally participates in the alleged constitutional violation or when there is a causal connection between the actions of the supervising official and the alleged constitutional deprivation. Brown v. Crawford, 906 F'.2d 667, 671 (11th Cir. 1990) . An inmate can establish the necessary causal connection by alleging

I

that "a history of widespread abuse put[] the responsible supervisor on notice of the need to correct the alleged

I

deprivation, and he or she fail[ ed] to do so." Mathews, 480 F'.3d at 1270. "The deprivations that constitute

I

widespread abuse sufficient to notify the supervising official must be obvious, flagrant, rampant and of continued duration, rather than isolated occurrences." Brown, 906 F'.2d at 671. In his Objection, Plaintiff alleges that numerous inmate complaints about medical personnel's disregard for

I

I

the inmates' medical needs at F'CI Jesup "had been filed by way of the Administrative Remedy process ­ all of which were swept `under the rug.'" (Dkt. No. 25.) Plaintiff
3

I

further alleges that the Administrative Review process, which includes procedures for formal requests for administrative action from the warden and appeals to the Bureau of Prisons, put Defendants Vazquez, Lappin, and Sera on notice of their subordinates' alleged constitutional deprivations. (Id.)

Taking these allegations as true, 1 as is appropriate at this stage of the proceedings, the numerous formal complaints about the prison medical staff's denial of adequate medical care to inmates were enough to put Defendants Vazquez, Lappin, and Sera on notice of misconduct that was sufficiently "obvious, flagrant, rampant and of continued duration" to require them to act. Brown, 906 F'.2d at 671. Because these Defendants allegedly failed to correct the reported misconduct, Plaintiff has established the necessary causal connection to hold Defendants Vasquez, Lappin, and Sera liable in their supervisory capacities. See Mathews, 480 F'.3d at 1270; see also Danley v. Allen, 540 F'.3d 1298, 1315 (11th Cir. 2008) (allegations that prison officials had knowledge through

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permit the Court to consider arguments and allegations not previously submitted to the Magistrate Judge. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72.
4

1

inmate complaints of jailers' regular and excessive use of pepper spray for no legitimate reason, and that prison officials failed to correct such misconduct, were sufficient to establish causal connection). Plaintiff's Objection to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation dismissing Plaintiff's claims against Defendants Vasquez, Lappin, and Sera is therefore SUSTAINED. The Court does not adopt the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation that Plaintiff's claims against Defendants Vasquez, Lappin and Sera be dismissed. The Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation that Plaintiff's claims against the Bureau of Prisons and FCI Jesup be dismissed. The Court also ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation that Plaintiff's claims against Defendants Chippi, Taratus, and Addira in their official capacities be dismissed.

SO ORDERED, this

30 th day of November, 2009.

_________ HONORABLE LISA GODBEY WOOD UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

5