Van Houten v. Bair et al

Filing 42

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ENTERED: The motion 37 to dismiss is granted. This matter is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Signed by Senior District Judge Sam A. Crow on 9/20/2011. (Mailed to pro se party James Edward Van Houten by regular mail.) (smnd)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

JAMES EDWARD VAN HOUTEN,
Plaintiff,
CIVIL ACTION
No. 10-3105-SAC

vs.
(FNU) BAIR, et al.,

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is a civil rights action filed pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983 by a prisoner in state custody.
before

the

court

on

the

motion

of

The matter comes

defendants

Rohling

Werholtz to dismiss (Doc. (37) on July 21, 2011.

and

Plaintiff

filed a response.
Background
Plaintiff was transferred to the Larned Correctional Mental
Health Facility on or about October 20, 2009.

He claims he has

not been provided with appropriate treatment and evaluation for
his mental health issues since that transfer and alleges that he
instead has been in segregation since that time.
Defendants’ motion to dismiss
“In reviewing a motion to dismiss, this court must look for

plausibility in the complaint....Under this standard, a complaint
must include ‘enough facts to state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.’” Corder v. Lewis Palmer Sch. Dist. No.
38, 566 F.3d 1219, 1223-24 (10th Cir. 2009)(quoting Bell Atl.
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)).
Next, “[a] claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff
pleads

factual

reasonable

content

inference

misconduct alleged.”

that

that

allows

the

the

defendant

court
is

to

liable

draw

the

for

the

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949

(2009).
In considering the motion to dismiss, the court accepts
plaintiff’s well-pleaded facts and the reasonable inferences from
them in a light most favorable to plaintiff.
Wagner, 523 F.3d 1278, 1283 (10th Cir. 2008).

Archuleta v.

However, the court

need not accept conclusory allegations without factual support.
Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991).
The Eighth Amendment requires prison officials to provide
adequate health care to inmates. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97,
103 (1976).

“[M]edical treatment for inmates' ... psychological

or psychiatric care” is included in this obligation.

Ramos v.

Lamm, 639 F.2d 559, 574 (10th Cir.1980) (internal quotations and
citations omitted).
A prisoner’s claim under the Eighth Amendment alleging
2

inadequate

medical

care

subjective component.

involves

both

an

objective

and

a

The objective component requires that a

prisoner have a serious medical need, that is, “one that has been
diagnosed by a physician as mandating treatment or one that is so
obvious

that

even

a

lay

person

would

necessity for a doctor's attention.”
(quotation and citation omitted).

easily

recognize

the

Ramos, 639 F.2d at 575

The subjective component “is

met if a prison official “‘knows of and disregards an excessive
risk to inmate health or safety’”.

Sealock v. Colo., 218 F.3d

1205, 1209 (10th Cir. 2000)(quoting Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837).
A prisoner’s disagreement with a course of treatment offered
does not give rise to a constitutional violation.

Ramos, 639

F.2d at 575 (“a mere difference of opinion between the prison's
medical staff and the inmate as to the diagnosis or treatment
which the inmate receives does not support a claim of cruel and
unusual punishment”); Perkins v. Kansas Dep't of Corr., 165 F.3d
803,

811

(10th

Cir.1999)(disagreements

with

the

treatment

provided by prison medical staff do not in themselves establish
deliberate indifference).
The court has carefully considered the Martinez report,
plaintiff’s objection to that report, the motion to dismiss, and
the plaintiff’s response.

After conducting this review, the

court is persuaded that plaintiff cannot state a claim for relief
3

based

upon

a

failure

to

provide

him

with

constitutionally

adequate medical care for his mental health concerns.
The materials before the court demonstrate that plaintiff
has been provided with services by contracting medical care
personnel throughout the relevant time period.

It appears

plaintiff on some occasions chose not to interact with mental
health providers, see, e.g., Doc. 35, Ex. 3, Bair Affidavit (par.
3.A, O, P, R, T), and it is clear that he continued to engage in
self-destructive behaviors such as cutting himself and reopening
wounds, see id., (par. A, D, E, F).

He also attempted suicide on

at least one occasion during the relevant time period, which
resulted in hospitalization outside the facility, id. at par. M.
Finally, he has engaged in behaviors that are abusive to staff
members, including spitting and throwing urine.

Id. at par. F

and K.
The record shows that plaintiff made numerous requests

for

individual therapy, and while this was attempted, see id., par.
5 and Ex. 3, Nassif Affidavit, par. 5, it could not be sustained
due to plaintiff’s behavior.

However, the materials offered to

the court do demonstrate ongoing staff contact with plaintiff.
The precautions taken, such as standing outside plaintiff’s cell
to speak with him, see Ex. 3, par. 4) are eminently reasonable in
light of plaintiff’s conduct as shown in the record.
4

Finally, there is no support for plaintiff’s assertion that
his serious injuries went untreated; rather, it appears his
wounds were examined and treated, see Ex. 6, entry of 12/17/09,
although

plaintiff

sometimes

refused

to

allow

personnel

to

evaluate his wounds. In some instances, staff applied restraints
in order to assess his wounds, see, e.g., Ex. 8, pp. 7-24
(narrative reports of 12/21/09).
In sum, nothing before the court reasonably suggests that
plaintiff was denied adequate medical care.

To the contrary, it

appears plaintiff has been provided considerable, and commendably
thorough, medical attention and monitoring despite his lack of
cooperation.

While plaintiff did not always receive the course

of treatment he sought or preferred, this does not present a
claim for relief.
Accordingly, having examined the record, the court concludes
the motion of defendants Werholtz and Rohling should be granted
and concludes this matter should be dismissed for failure to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
IT IS, THEREFORE, BY THE COURT ORDERED the motion to dismiss
(Doc. 37) is granted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED this matter is dismissed for failure
to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
Copies of this order shall be transmitted to the parties.
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated at Topeka, Kansas, this 20th day of September, 2011.

S/ Sam A. Crow
SAM A. CROW
United States Senior District Judge

6