Caviness v. Corizon Health, Inc. et al
Filing
6
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: 1. Caviness's federal claims against dft are DISMISSED with prejudice; 2. To the extent that Caviness is also trying to assert state law claims against the defendants, those claims are DISMISSED without prejudice. Th is means that Caviness can pursue those claims in state court, if he so chooses. 3. This action is DISMISSED and STRICKEN from the Court's docket. 4. Corresponding Judgement will be entered this date. Signed by Judge Joseph M. Hood on 7/17/2018.(JJ)cc: COR
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
CENTRAL DIVISION at LEXINGTON
DAVID ATREYEL CAVINESS,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
v.
LEXINGTON-FAYETTE URBAN
COUNTY GOVERNMENT, ET AL.,
Defendants.
***
***
Civil No. 18-427-JMH
MEMORANDUM OPINION
AND ORDER
***
***
David Atreyel Caviness is an inmate at the Fayette County
Detention
Center
(FCDC)
in
Lexington,
Kentucky.
Proceeding
without a lawyer, Caviness filed a civil rights action with this
Court pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
[R. 1].
For the reasons set
forth below, the Court will dismiss this action.
I.
Caviness alleges that, on March 18, 2018, he slipped and fell
on a wet floor at the FCDC.
Caviness says that when he fell, he
hit his head and also landed awkwardly, resulting in severe back
pain.
Caviness claims that Charge Nurse Keith Gast “briefly
evaluated” him and had him “stand and take a few steps” before
clearing him.
Caviness claims that “no further action was taken”
at that time.
[R. 1 at 2].
Caviness says that he woke up the next day with severe pain
in his lower back and asked Nurse Amy Hunt if he could see the
jail’s medical staff.
According to Caviness, Nurse Hunt told him
that he “would be seen for a follow up.”
[R. 1 at 2].
Caviness, however, claims that, as of May 1, 2018, he had not
been “examined more extensively or properly treated.”
Caviness
also says that, on that date, he filed “a grievance in reference
to the non-use of wet floor signs” and because officials had not
yet “followed up in regards to [his] complaint of injury and pain.”
[R. 1 at 3].
That said, Caviness alleges that, on May 15, 2018, he “was
seen by Dr. Welling and Kristen Fryman,” who allegedly denied being
previously aware of Caviness’s injuries.
Still, Caviness says
that Welling and Fryman ordered him an x-ray, which was performed
by an x-ray technician.
[R. 1 at 3].
Caviness then says that, on May 23, 2018, he “was seen by Dr.
Q. Moore” and, at that time, became fully aware of his injuries,
including “mild facet arthropathy, bony foraminal narrowing at L5S1, [and] possible lumbarization of S1.”
another doctor then ordered him a CT scan.
Caviness suggests that
[R. 1 at 3].
Finally, Caviness states that, on June 7, 2018, he asked an
official whether there was “a policy in place for wet floors.”
According to Caviness, that person suggested, among other things,
that officers might “place signs in wet areas” or “verbally state
that floors are wet.”
[R. 1 at 3].
2
After setting forth the foregoing allegations, Caviness lists
five different defendants in his complaint, and he states a
specific claim against each defendant.
[R. 1 at 4].
First, Caviness sues Correctional Officer Ryan Proctor and
claims that Proctor “failed to instruct” someone else “to place
wet floor signs, mop buckets, or verbally announce the condition
of [the] wet floor, which directly led to my injury.”
[R. 1 at
4].
Second, Caviness sues Charge Nurse Keith Gast and claims that
Gast failed to properly evaluate him.
Caviness also says that
Gast failed to “place me on a follow list, which led me to be
denied adequate medical care for 63 days before x-ray[s], which
caused my injuries to still be untreated.”
[R. 1 at 4].
Third, Caviness sues Steve Haney, the Director of the FCDC,
and claims that since Haney “employs Proctor and Gast,” he “failed
to create a safe environment and follow policy put in place to
protect inmates.”
[R. 1 at 4].
Fourth, Caviness sues the Lexington-Fayette Urban County
Government (LFUCG) and claims simply that “LFUCG employs Proctor
and Haney.”
[R. 1 at 4].
Fifth, Caviness sues Corizon Health, Inc., but he only says,
“Corizon employs Keith Gast.”
Then,
instead
of
[R. 1 at 4].
clearly
identifying
which
laws
each
defendant allegedly violated, Caviness claims that the defendants
3
collectively violated his rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth
Amendments to the federal constitution by creating an “unsafe
environment when Officer Proctor failed to have wet floor signs
placed
in
unit,”
providing
“inadequate
“breach[ing] [their] duty to protect” him.
medical
care,”
and
[R. 1 at 5].
II.
This matter is now before the Court on initial screening.
See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2), 1915A.
Pursuant to these provisions,
this Court must dismiss any claim that is frivolous or malicious,
fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks
monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.
See id.
As drafted, Caviness’s federal claims must be dismissed for
failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
With
respect to Caviness’s federal claims against FCDC Director Steve
Haney, Caviness does not allege that Haney was personally involved
in the incidents in question and, ultimately, Ҥ 1983 liability
must be based on more than respondeat superior, or the right to
control employees.”
Cir. 1999).
Shehee v. Luttrell, 199 F.3d 295, 300 (6th
Therefore, the Court will dismiss Caviness’s federal
claims against Haney.
With respect to Caviness’s federal claims against LFUCG and
Corizon Health, Inc., Caviness simply states that these entities
employ some of the other defendants.
4
However, LFUCG and Corizon
may not be liable merely because they employ certain individuals;
instead,
those
individuals’
actions
must
have
been
attributable to a policy or custom of their employer.
directly
See Thomas
v. City of Chattanooga, 398 F.3d 426, 429 (6th Cir. 2005) (citing
Monell v. New York City Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 690
(1978); see also Anderson v. Ballard, No. 3:17-cv-026-GFVT (E.D.
Ky. March 16, 2018) (citing Thomas v. Coble, 55 F. App’x 748, 749
(6th Cir. 2003)).
Here, Caviness makes no such allegation against
LFUCG or Corizon.
As a result, the Court will dismiss Caviness’s
federal claims against these entities.
Caviness has also failed to state a viable federal claim
against Correctional Officer Ryan Proctor, the person Caviness
claims was responsible for the wet floor in the first place.
Although Caviness argues that Proctor ran afoul of his rights under
the constitution, he simply has not alleged the kind of intentional
conduct that would give rise to such a claim.
See, e.g., Daniels
v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 330-34 (1986). Thus, the Court will
dismiss Caviness’s federal claims against Proctor.
Finally, Caviness has also failed to state a viable federal
claim against Charge Nurse Keith Gast.
While Caviness claims that
Gast failed to “properly” evaluate him [R. 1 at 4], he acknowledges
that Gast provided him with medical attention.
Indeed, Caviness
specifically states that, on the day he slipped and fell, Gast
“briefly evaluated” him and had him “stand and take a few steps”
5
before clearing him. [R. 1 at 2]. Thus, it is clear that Caviness’s
real dispute is over the adequacy of the treatment he received.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, however,
has recognized that “[w]here a prisoner has received some medical
attention and the dispute is over the adequacy of the treatment,
federal courts are generally reluctant to second guess medical
judgments and to constitutionalize claims that sound in state tort
law.”
Graham ex rel. Estate of Graham v. County of Washtenaw, 358
F.3d 377, 385 (6th Cir. 2004) (quoting Westlake v. Lucas, 537 F.2d
857, 860 n.5 (6th Cir. 1976)).
Similarly, the Sixth Circuit has
repeatedly
mere
treatment
recognized
does
not
that
give
deliberate indifference.
a
rise
to
disagreement
a
over
constitutional
medical
claim
of
See, e.g., Wright v. Sapp, 59 F. App’x
799, 801 (6th Cir. 2003); Simpson v. Ameji, 57 F. App’x 238, 239
(6th Cir. 2003).
To be sure, Caviness also blames Gast for the alleged delay
in his treatment.
[R. 1 at 4].
But, again, Caviness acknowledges
that Gast evaluated him shortly after he fell, and he also makes
it clear that, the very next day, he interacted with another Nurse,
Amy Hunt.
[R. 1 at 2].
Caviness then indicates that it was that
nurse, not Gast, who suggested he “would be seen for a follow up.”
[R. 1 at 2].
Caviness’s
Thus, even if there was a delay in his treatment,
own
complaint
attributable to Gast.
indicates
that
the
delay
was
not
Plus, Caviness does not even allege, in any
6
clear way, that Gast acted with the kind of culpable mental state
that
would
be
indifference.
needed
to
make
out
a
claim
of
deliberate
For all of these reasons, the Court will dismiss
Caviness’s federal claims against Gast.
III.
In conclusion, Caviness has not stated viable federal claims
against the defendants.
That said, to the extent that Caviness is
also trying to assert state law claims against the defendants, the
Court simply declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over
those claims.
That is because the Court has dismissed all of
Caviness’s federal claims and has determined that the balance of
judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity all point
toward declining jurisdiction over those state law claims.
U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).
See 28
Ultimately, this means that Caviness is
welcome to file a lawsuit against the defendants in state court,
if he so chooses.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED as follows:
1. Caviness’s
federal
claims
against
the
defendants
are
DISMISSED with prejudice;
2. To the extent that Caviness is also trying to assert state
law
claims
against
the
defendants,
DISMISSED without prejudice.
those
claims
This means that Caviness can
pursue those claims in state court, if he so chooses.
7
are
3. This action is DISMISSED and STRICKEN from the Court’s
docket.
4. A corresponding Judgment will be entered this date.
This 17th day of July, 2018.
8
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?