Rhodes v. Gusman et al
Filing
76
ORDER AND REASONS - IT IS ORDERED that Defendants' motion for summary judgment is GRANTED and Plaintiff's claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
WILLIE RHODES, IV #2124888
Plaintiff
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
No. 11-1530
MARLIN GUSMAN, et al.
Defendants
Section “E”
ORDER AND REASONS
The Court has pending before it Defendants' motion for summary judgment.1 The
Court has reviewed Plaintiff Willie Rhodes' responses,2 the record, and the applicable law,
and now issues this order and reasons granting the motion for summary judgment.
BACKGROUND
In his numerous pleadings, Plaintiff Rhodes alleges that he was subjected to an
unconstitutional level of medical treatment during his detention in Orleans Parish Prison.
In his initial complaint, Plaintiff asserted that he suffers from congestive heart failure and
aortal fibrillation and that, between February 15 and April 7, 2011, he "was met with
'deliberate indifference'" and "received no assistance" from a "medical staff [that] was
objectively unreasonable, malicious [and] sadistic, evil, mean, vicious [and] desired to see
[him] suffer."3 In a first supplemental filing, he filed a copy of an OPP grievance form
1
R. Doc. 69.
2
R. Docs. 70, 72.
3
R. Doc. 3 at 5.
1
asserting that "sick call" procedures at OPP are punitive in nature.4
In a second
supplemental filing, he asserted that "sick call" requires multiple requests and several
weeks before being seen and is designed as a "deterr[e]nt to seeking health care."5 He also
asserted specific complaints against individuals at OPP, including (1) Dr. Gore, who
"ignored specific medical conditions that were obviously signs of distress in a patient with
congestive heart failure," (2) Dr. Johnson who "smirk[ed]" and was antagonistic in
demeanor, (3) Dr. Gauthreaux, who Plaintiff believes was intoxicated and walked out of an
examination, (4) Nurse Bloomfield, who "chose to create an argument regarding" his
obvious symptoms, and (5) Nurse Fields, who was "unresponsive to medical complaints"
and disregarded signs of distress. He also complained of unchecked hypertension, a stroke,
occlusion of his right eye, reduction of kidney functions, and glaucoma.
Plaintiff then sought and obtained leave6 to file an amended complaint,7 in which he
clarified claims regarding deficiencies in the sick call procedure. He also asserted claims
against (1) Nurse Paige, whose "overall demeanor is hostile," "abrasive, confrontational,
and indifferent," (2) Nurse Davis, who "witnessed the extreme suffering, swelling, and
elevated blood" over the relevant period, and (3) Nurse Tonzell, who "responded during the
night to the many occasions pressure in my chest rapid[ly] drop[ped] in blood pressure as
well as distress situation."
Defendants now move for summary judgment, contending that (1) they were not
4
R. Doc. 16.
5
R. Doc. 18.
6
R. Doc. 24.
7
R. Doc. 25.
2
deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff's medical needs, (2) Plaintiff failed to state a claim
against Sheriff Gusman himself, in any capacity, and (3) Plaintiff failed to exhaust his
administrative remedies.8 Plaintiff filed two responses.9
STANDARD OF LAW
Summary judgment is appropriate only “if the movant shows that there is no genuine
dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56; see also Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986).
If the dispositive issue is one on which the moving party will bear the burden of proof
at trial, the moving party “must come forward with evidence which would ‘entitle it to a
directed verdict if the evidence went uncontroverted at trial.’” Int’l Shortstop, Inc. v.
Rally’s, Inc., 939 F.2d 1257, 1263-64 (5th Cir. 1991). If the moving party fails to carry this
burden, the motion must be denied. If the moving party successfully carries this burden,
the burden then shifts to the non-moving party to show that a genuine issue of material fact
exists. Id. at 322-23. Once the burden has shifted, the non-moving party must direct the
Court’s attention to something in the pleadings or other evidence in the record that sets
forth specific facts sufficient to establish that a genuine issue of material fact does indeed
exist. Id. at 324.
If the dispositive issue is one on which the non-moving party will bear the burden
of proof at trial, however, the moving party may satisfy its burden by simply pointing out
that the evidence in the record is insufficient with respect to an essential element of the
non-moving party’s claim. See Celotex, 477 U.S. at 325. The nonmoving party must then
8
9
R. Doc. 69.
R. Docs. 70, 72.
3
respond, either by “calling the Court’s attention to supporting evidence already in the
record that was overlooked or ignored by the moving party” or by coming forward with
additional evidence. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 332-33 & 333 n.3.
“An issue is material if its resolution could affect the outcome of the action.”
DIRECTV Inc. v. Robson, 420 F.3d 532, 536 (5th Cir. 2005). When assessing whether a
material factual dispute exists, the Court considers “all of the evidence in the record but
refrains from making credibility determinations or weighing the evidence.” Delta & Pine
Land Co. v. Nationwide Agribusiness Ins. Co., 530 F.3d 395, 398 (5th Cir. 2008); see also
Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing, Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 150-51 (2000). All reasonable
inferences are drawn in favor of the non-moving party. Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d
1069, 1075 (5th Cir. 1994). There is no genuine issue of material fact if, even viewing the
evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, no reasonable trier of fact
could find for the non-moving party, thus entitling the moving party to judgment as a
matter of law. Smith v. Amedisys, 298 F.3d 434, 440 (5th Cir. 2002).
ANALYSIS
Plaintiff asserts that his medical treatment at OPP violates his Eighth Amendment
rights. "Finding a violation of the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and
unusual punishment [based on deliberate indifference to medical needs] ... requires a
twofold analysis" of both (1) "objective exposure to a substantial risk of serious harm " and
(2) "that prison officials acted or failed to act with deliberate indifference to that risk."
Gobert v. Caldwell, 463 F.3d 339, 345-46 (5th Cir. 2006). The Court will assume Plaintiff
has met the "objective prong" and that his congestive heart failure, glaucoma, and other
conditions exposed him to a substantial risk of serious harm. Thus, the dispositive issue
4
in this case is the second "subjective prong" of the analysis.
"A prison official acts with deliberate indifference only if (A) he knows that inmates
face a substantial risk of serious bodily harm and (B) he disregards that risk by failing to
take reasonable measures to abate it." Id. at 346 (internal quotation marks and alterations
omitted). "Unsuccessful medical treatment, acts of negligence, or medical malpractice do
not constitute deliberate indifference, nor does a prisoner's disagreement with his medical
treatment, absent exceptional circumstances." Id. "A showing of deliberate indifference
requires the prisoner to submit evidence that prison officials refused to treat him, ignored
his complaints, intentionally treated him incorrectly, or engaged in any similar conduct that
would clearly evince a wanton disregard for any serious medical needs." Id. (internal
quotation marks omitted). "Deliberate indifference is an extremely high standard to meet."
Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).
The case of Gobert v. Caldwell provides a useful benchmark for the kinds of facts a
plaintiff must set forward to show a genuine dispute regarding deliberate indifference.10
In Gobert, the plaintiff inmate injured his leg while on work release and, after treatment
at a hospital, was discharged with a prescription for antibiotics and instructions to prevent
wound infection. See id. at 343-44. The plaintiff alleged that he did not timely and
consistently receive antibiotics, resulting in an infection and subsequent osteomyelitis. See
id. at 344. The defendant prison doctor admitted that, given the symptoms of infection
displayed by the plaintiff, he would want to inspect the leg every other day, but that he did
10
Gobert was an appeal from a denial of qualified immunity, but the analysis
regarding the facts necessary to survive summary judgment on an Eighth Amendment
deliberate indifference claim applies equally here.
5
not do so. See id. at 348-49.
But the Fifth Circuit held that even though the doctor's treatment fell below the
standard of care, that "did not necessarily create a fact question pertaining to deliberate
indifference," because "deliberate indifference exists wholly independent of an optimal
standard of care." See id. at 349. Notwithstanding the delays in treatment and a six-day
period during which the plaintiff displayed serious symptoms of infection but did not
receive antibiotics, those facts failed to rise "to the level of egregious intentional conduct
required to satisfy the exacting deliberate indifference standard." See id. at 351 (emphasis
added). With Gobert as a guidepost, the Court turns to the present motion.
Defendants rely primarily on their submission of Plaintiff's medical records for the
time periods alleged in the pleadings. See id. at 346 n.24 ("Medical records of sick calls,
examinations, diagnoses, and medications may rebut an inmate's allegations of deliberate
indifference.") (internal quotation marks omitted). According to Defendants and those
records, Plaintiff met with medical staff at least thirty times during the period alleged in his
complaint, was given many tests, and was prescribed medication and special diets.11
Moreover, Defendants cite medical records establishing that Plaintiff on several occasions
failed to comply with medical directives resulting from that treatment.12 See id. at 346 n.25
("Failure to comply with medical instructions is another factor . . . to consider in evaluating
deliberate indifference.").
Plaintiff's responses are scattershot. He criticizes the "dump of unnumbered,
11
R. Doc. 69-2 at 3-4 (citing medical records).
12
Id. at 4-5 (citing medical records).
6
unintelligible medical records."13 Substantively, he describes an incident in which he was
transported to the House of Detention and a nurse "dispatched an emergency ambulance
upon the mere sight of [his] distressed state."14 Plaintiff asserts that he was taken to a
hospital, where unidentified staff asked "Why did you wait so long to come to us?" and
Plaintiff responded that he had been informed by Dr. Johnson that he would be refused
admittance to the hospital.15 Plaintiff cites a Nurse's Note16 which he contends corroborates
this account, and urges that if he could obtain discovery from University Hospital, those
records would demonstrate that at the hospital he coded twice and had eight liters of fluid
pumped from his right lung.17
Resolving all factual disputes and drawing reasonable inferences in Plaintiff's favor,
and considering his pro se status, the Court nonetheless concludes that on the facts
presented, Plaintiff has not raised a factual dispute that his treatment at OPP rose to the
stringent level of deliberate indifference. The medical records of Plaintiff's treatment
contradict his allegations that his conditions were ignored. See id. at 346 n.24, 351-52
(finding no dispute of fact based on "the record of extensive medical treatment spanning
the final two and one half months of Gobert's incarceration and the lack of evidence to
establish the necessary culpable intent"). Plaintiff's medical treatment while at OPP may
13
R. Doc. 72 at 2. He also contends that "several years of 'sick call' request were
removed from" his file." Id. at 4.
14
Id. at 2.
15
Id.
16
R. Doc. 69-3 at 46.
17
R. Doc. 72 at 2-3.
7
not have been ideal and may very well have been negligent, but he has not presented
competent summary judgment evidence supporting an inference of the requisite subjective
"wanton disregard." See id. at 350 n.34 ("[F]ailure to receive the most effective treatment
cannot form the basis of deliberate indifference but, rather, sounds in negligence."). His
conclusory statements in his pleadings regarding the demeanor of certain nurses and his
anecdotal account of emergency treatment do not generate a triable fact question in light
of the unrebutted record evidence establishing that he received frequent medical treatment
responsive to his conditions. At most, these assertions are a hodgepodge of perceived
slights and errors, none of which could support a conclusion by the trier of fact of any
particular medical professional's subjective and willful disregard of a substantial health risk
about which he or she knew.
In short, having reviewed the record, the Court is left with the inescapable
conclusion that this is a case like Gobert in which, although Plaintiff suffered medical
complications, "no disputed fact question, when resolved in favor of [Plaintiff], rises to the
level of egregious intentional conduct required to satisfy the exacting deliberate
indifference standard." Gobert, 463 F.3d at 351. Accordingly, summary judgment in favor
of Defendants is warranted. The Court does not reach the alternate bases for summary
judgment.
8
IT IS ORDERED that Defendants' motion for summary judgment is GRANTED
and Plaintiff's claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 31st day of March, 2014.
_____________________________
SUSIE MORGAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
9
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?