Hayes v. Bryson et al
Filing
36
ORDER overruling 31 Defendants' Objections to the Magistrate Judge's January 10, 2017 Report and Recommendations; adopting 30 Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendations as the opinion of the Court; and denying Defendants' 19 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Judge J. Randal Hall on 3/7/2017. (jah)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
STATESBORO DIVISION
MARION STANLEY HAYES,
Plaintiff,
CIVIL ACTION NO.: 6:16-cv-20
v.
ROBERT TOOLE, et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER
Presently before the Court are Defendants' Objections to the Magistrate Judge's January
10, 2017, Report and Recommendation. (Doc. 31.) After an independent and de novo review of
the entire record, the undersigned concurs with the Magistrate Judge's Report and
Recommendation, (doc. 30).
Accordingly, the Court OVERRULES the Defendants'
Objections, ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation, as supplemented herein, as the opinion
of the Court, and DENIES Defendants' Motionto Dismiss, (doc. 19.)
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff filed this case pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and contended Defendants denied
him access to necessary medical care, in violation of his rights under the Eighth Amendment to
the United States Constitution. (Doc. 1.) The Magistrate Judge conducted the requisite frivolity
review on June 8, 2016, (doc. 9), and found that Plaintiffs Eighth Amendment claims for
injunctive relief against Defendants Toole, Williams, Broome, and Sabine in their official
capacities and his claims for monetary damages against these Defendants' in their individual
capacities should proceed. (Doc. 8.) However, the Magistrate Judge recommended that the
Court dismiss Plaintiffs claims for monetary damages against Defendants in their official
capacities and Plaintiffs claims against Defendants Georgia Department of Corrections, Georgia
State Prison, Bryson, Lewis, Jacobs, Fountain, Nicolov, and Fara. (Doc. 9.) The Court adopted
the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. (Doc. 29.)
Defendants Toole, Williams, Broome, and Sabine filed a Motion to Dismiss on August
11, 2016, (doc. 19), and on January 10, 2017, the Magistrate Judge recommended the Court deny
that Motion. Defendants filed Objections to the January 10, 2017, Report and Recommendation
on January 24,2016. (Doc. 31.)
DISCUSSION
Defendants
Toole,
Williams,
and
Sabine object
to
the
Magistrate
Judge's
recommendation that the Court deny their Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs Eighth Amendment
deliberate indifference claims against them. (Doc. 31, p. 2.) Specifically, Defendants Toole,
Williams, and Sabine contend that"[r]ead fairly, the only averments in the complaint concerning
these Defendants are that they denied one or more grievances concerning Plaintiffs hip." (Id)
Defendants argue that they cannot be held liable under Section 1983 for the mere denial of a
grievance and that Plaintiffs Eighth Amendment claims against them should, therefore, be
dismissed.
"An allegation that prison officials denied grievances does not 'support a finding of
constitutional violations on the part of those defendants." Gresham v. Lewis, No. 6:15-CV-86,
2016 WL 164317, at *3 (S.D. Ga. Jan. 13, 2016) (citing Bennett v. Sec'v. Fla. Dep't of Corr.,
No. 4:12CV32-MP/CAS, 2012 WL 4760856, at *1 (N.D. Fla. Aug. 27, 2012), report and
recommendation adopted, No. 4:12-CV-00032-MP-CAS, 2012 WL 4760797 (N.D. Fla. Oct. 2,
2012) (quoting Raske v. Dugger, 819 F. Supp. 1046, 1054 (M.D. Fla. 1993)); see also Ludy v.
Nelson, No. 5:14-CV-73-MTT-CHW, 2014 WL 2003017, at *3 (M.D. Ga. Apr. 18, 2014),
report and recommendation adopted, No. 5:14-CV-73 MTT, 2014 WL 2003096 (M.D. Ga. May
15, 2014) ("the mere fact that a prison official denies a grievance is insufficient to impose
liability under § 1983.") (citing Gallagher v. Shelton. 587 F.3d 1063, 1069 (10th Cir. 2009), and
Baker v. Rexroad, 159 F. App'x 61, 62 (11th Cir. 2005)).
Nevertheless, as the Magistrate Judge explained in the Report and Recommendation, in
this particular case, Defendants Toole, Williams, and Sabine's denials of Plaintiffs grievances
cannot be severed from Plaintiffs deliberate indifference claims. Defendants assert that "this is
no different than saying the denial of the grievance makes the prison official liable for the
violation claimed in the grievance[.]" (Doc. 31, p. 2). However, Defendants' argument ignores
certain facts embedded within Plaintiffs claims. Plaintiff is not merely attempting to hold
Defendants liable for deliberate indifference that predated his grievances.
Rather, Plaintiff
contends Defendants exhibited deliberate indifference during and after the grievance process by
refusing him necessary medical attention requested in his grievances. Defendants are not
insulated from liability simply because they received the request for medical attention via
grievances. See Pino v. The State of Florida, Case No. 12-24169-CIV-UNGARO, 2013 WL
12064512, at *7 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 5, 2013) (explaining distinction between pure denial-of-
grievance claims in which a supervisor reviews a grievance concerning the past conduct of a
subordinate and a grievance in which a prison official reviews a plaintiffs request for medical
care).
Further, Plaintiff contends that Defendants Tool and Sabine denied his grievances
because the medical care he requests is expensive, (doc. 1, p. 10), and that Defendant Williams
denied his grievance by "falsely stating that Plaintiff refused to be seen at sick call[.]" (Id at
p. 11.) These facts, which the Court must accept as true at this stage, demonstrate that
Defendants' reasoning for denying Plaintiffs grievances exhibited deliberate indifference to his
serious medical needs. See id. (holding that, while "denial of a grievance, on its own, will be
insufficient to state a claim in most circumstances", there is no "bright-line rule that the denial of
a grievance can never support § 1983 liability" and concluding that defendants who denied
plaintiffs grievances requesting medical care, despite their authority to approve plaintiffs
medical requests and their knowledge of plaintiffs medical needs, may be held liable under the
Eighth Amendment). Therefore, the Magistrate Judge correctly distinguished the allegations
within Plaintiffs Complaint from general denial-of-grievance claims and correctly construed
those claims as deliberate indifference claims.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated in the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation and set
forth above, the Court OVERRULES Defendants' Objections, ADOPTS the Report and
Recommendation as the opinion of the Court, and DENIES Defendants' Motion to Dismiss,
(doc. 19).
SO ORDERED, this r^ day ofMarch, 2017.
HONORABLE J. RANDAL HALL
UNITEIXSTATES DISTRICT JUDGE
-SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
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?