House v. Fackler et al

Filing 95

MEMORANDUM OPINION signed by Judge John G. Heyburn, II on 5/12/2011 re 82 MOTION for Summary Judgment. The Court will enter an order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion. cc: Counsel, Plaintiff (AEP)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
AT LOUISVILLE
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:09-CV-P935
JAMES E. HOUSE

PLAINTIFF

V.
DANNY FACKLER, et al.

DEFENDANTS

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Defendant, Danny Fackler, is the only remaining Defendant. The Court has previously
dismissed all other Defendants. On December 22, 2010, Fackler filed a motion for summary
judgment. As it turns out, there are two reasons why this motion should be sustained.
I.
On December 1, 2009, Plaintiff, James E. House, filed the present pro se civil rights
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging a variety of claims against a number of different
parties. Specifically, Plaintiff claims the various Defendants to this action failed to provide him
with adequate proper medical care while incarcerated at the Bullitt County Detention Center
(“BCDC”). In particular, the remaining Defendant, Fackler, was the Bullitt County Jailer.
Plaintiff asserts he has “high blood pressure, heart problems–previously a heart attack in
Bullitt County [Detention Center] and lay on the floor for approximately three hours with no
medical care or help, nurse stated that I was okay.” Plaintiff further asserts that “Jailer, Danny
Fackler Refuses me Medical treatment and meds.” Additionally, Plaintiff claims after having a
heart attack in June of 2009 at BCDC, no one called for help or would take him to the hospital.
He also states that he “was placed on 17 pills a day but when sent to Bullitt County Detention
Center, because their Medical Staff are not nurse’s, they can not give me my medications.”

Plaintiff also states he had a stroke while housed at BCDC in September of 2009 “which left me
looking like a Freek now.” Plaintiff alleges that his foot is swollen to more than twice its normal
size since BCDC stopped his medication.
After an initial screening of Plaintiff’s pro se complaint, this Court entered a
Memorandum Opinion dated February 19, 2010, allowing some of Plaintiff’s claims to proceed
for further development, while dismissing others. The only remaining claims against Fackler
allege deliberate difference by denial of medical treatment and retaliation. On November 4,
2010, this Court entered an additional Memorandum Opinion and Order dismissing all other
BCDC Defendants, leaving only Fackler. Plaintiff was instructed that the deadline for filing any
and all additional amendments to his complaint was December 6, 2010. The Court specifically
stated that “No further motions to amend will be considered after that date.”
On August 18, 2010, Defendants, Rosie Smith and Donna Bullock, filed their motion for
summary judgment on all of Plaintiff’s claims. On March 10, 2011, this Court sustained that
motion and dismissed all claims against Smith and Bullock. The Court’s Memorandum Opinion
of that date essentially governs the remaining claims against Fackler.
II.
The Prison Litigation Reform Act (hereinafter “PLRA”) requires an inmate to exhaust his
administrative remedies before initiating litigation. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). The Bullitt County
Detention Center Policy and Procedure XII-600 provides the following administrative remedies:
Any inmate shall be allowed to file a grievance at such time as the
inmate believes he or she has been subject to abuse, harassment,
abridgement of civil rights or denied privileges specified in the
posted rules.
That policy further provides that the grievance must be made in written form promptly following
2

the incident, sealed in an unstamped envelope, and addressed to the shift commander. The
grievance must state the time, date, names of detention officers and/or staff members involved,
and pertinent details of the incident including the names of any witnesses.
Consequently, to the extent Plaintiff was dissatisfied with the medical care at BCDC, or
believed he was being retaliated against, under the PLRA he first must file and exhaust the
available grievance procedure before initiating litigation. Plaintiff has not filed a grievance
complaining of medical care or retaliation. Exhausting available administrative remedies before
filing suit in federal court is mandatory. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a); Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516,
532 (2002); Wyatt v. Leonard, 193 F.3d 876, 877-78 (6th Cir. 1999). Having failed to satisfy the
exhaustion requirement prior to initiating litigation, Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant must be
dismissed.
III.
To establish a violation of Eighth Amendment rights resulting from a denial of medical
care, Plaintiff must show that Fackler was deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs.
Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976); Brooks v. Celeste, 39 F.3d 125, 127 (6th Cir. 1994).
Mere negligence is insufficient to entitle the Plaintiff to relief for an alleged violation of the
Eighth Amendment. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. at105-106.
Moreover, a complaint filed under § 1983 must show a causal connection between the
named defendants and the alleged constitutional deprivation. Cook v. Southern Health Partners,
2009 WL 1409713, *3 (W.D. Ky. 2009). “Congress did not intend § 1983 liability to attach
where causation is absent.” Id. (quoting Deaton v. Montgomery County, 989 F.2d 885, 889 (6th
Cir. 1993)). To establish causation, a plaintiff must adduce “an affirmative link . . . [a] moving

3

force that animated the behavior . . . that resulted in the constitutional violations alleged.” Id.
In instances where a plaintiff has received at least some medical attention, “federal courts
are generally reluctant to second guess medical judgments and to constitutionalize claims which
sound in state tort law.” Gibson - Riggs v. Grant County Detention Center, 2010 WL 1050071,
*6 (E.D. Ky. 2010) (citing Westlake v. Lucas, 537 F.2d 857, 860, fn. 5 (6th Cir. 1976)). Where
treatment is provided, yet a disagreement arises as to the course of treatment received, a § 1983
claim for violation of the Eighth Amendment will not lie. Id. at *7 (citing White v. Correctional
Med. Servs, Inc., 94 F.App’x 262, 264 (6th Cir. 2004)). See also Oglesby v. Helton, 2010 WL
3522984 (M.D. Tenn. 2010).
Here, the Plaintiff has put forth no evidence that Fackler was deliberately indifferent to a
serious medical need. In fact, medical professionals saw and treated Plaintiff several times
during his incarceration at BCDC. The medical records further indicate the medical staff
monitored Plaintiff’s condition on a regular basis. Those records also demonstrate that Plaintiff
was provided with prescription medications in treatment of his medical needs on a continuous
basis. Consequently, the evidence falls far short of that necessary to prove deliberate
indifference.

4

The Court will enter an order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion.

May 12, 2011

cc:

Counsel of Record