Arita v. Hooker et al
Filing
37
RULING AND ORDER Adopting the 35 Report and Recommendation of the U.S. Magistrate Judge. The 15 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment be granted in part and denied in part, dismissing Plaintiff's claims of deliberate indifference, but denying the motion in all other respects. Signed by Chief Judge Brian A. Jackson on 2/9/2015. (LLH)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
THEODORE ARITA
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
JOSEPH HOOKER, ET AL.
NO.:14-00116-BAJ-SCR
RULING AND ORDER
On January 22, 2015, the United States Magistrate Judge issued a Report
and Recommendation, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), recommending that
Defendants’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. 15), filed by Joseph
Hooker and Jimmy Smith, be granted in part and denied in part, dismissing
Plaintiff Theodore Arita’s (“Plaintiff”) claims of deliberate indifference, but denying
the motion in all other respects. (Doc. 35).
The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation specifically notified the
parties that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), they had fourteen (14) days from the
date they received the Report and Recommendation to file written objections to the
proposed findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations therein. (Doc.
35 at p. 1). A review of the record indicates that Plaintiff timely filed objections on
January 28, 2015. (Doc. 36).
In his objections, Plaintiff asserts that medical personnel’s attempt “to
downplay the extent of [his] injuries on documents, [and] fail[ure] to order proper
testing” amounts to deliberate indifference to his mental health needs. (Doc. 36 at
p. 1). However, Plaintiff’s assertion is incorrect. Whether Plaintiff received the
treatment or accommodation which he believes he should have is not the pertinent
inquiry. See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976); Woodall v. Foti, 648 F.2d 268
(5th Cir. 1981). Instead, the United States Supreme Court has adopted “subjective
recklessness as used in the criminal law” as the appropriate standard to apply in
cases of deliberate indifference under the Eighth Amendment. Farmer v. Brennan,
511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994). Under this standard, “a prison official cannot be found
liable . . . unless the official knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate
health or safety; the official must both be aware of facts from which the inference
could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists, and he must also
draw the inference.” Id. Such a showing requires the inmate to allege 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.” Domino v. Tex. Dep't of Criminal Justice,
239 F.3d 752, 756 (5th Cir. 2001) (quoting Johnson v. Treen, 759 F.2d 1236, 1238
(5th Cir. 1985)).
Accordingly, deliberate indifference is an “extremely high”
standard to meet. Gobert v. Caldwell, 463 F.3d 339, 346 (5th Cir. 2006) (quotation
omitted).
In short, Plaintiff has failed to make the showing necessary to survive
summary judgment. Specifically, Plaintiff has failed to point to specific evidence in
the record to refute Defendants’ assertion that he was examined by medical
personnel immediately following the incident, and examined by mental health
2
personnel approximately two weeks later. (See 18-1 at pp. 2-13). The mere fact
that the alleged incident occurred on November 29, 2012, and Plaintiff was not seen
by mental health personnel until December 17, 2012, does not, alone, amount to
deliberate indifference.
See Mendoza v. Lynaugh, 989 F.2d 191 (5th Cir. 1993)
(holding that a mere delay in treatment did not constitute an Eighth Amendment
violation without both deliberate indifference and a resulting substantial harm).
Therefore, Plaintiff’s objection is without merit.
Alternatively, Plaintiff requests that this Court defer summary judgment
until after discovery. However, Plaintiff has failed to make the requisite showing to
support such a decision. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d) (requiring nonmovant to show “by
affidavit or declaration that, for specific reasons, [he] cannot present facts essential
to justify [his] opposition.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d). Accordingly, the Court will not
defer its ruling.
Having carefully considered Defendants’ motion, Plaintiff’s complaint and
related
filings,
the
Court
approves
the
Magistrate
Judge’s
Report
and
Recommendation, and hereby adopts its findings of fact, conclusions of law, and
recommendation.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report (Doc. 35) is
ADOPTED as the Court’s opinion herein.
3
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Summary
Judgment (Doc. 15) be granted in part and denied in part, dismissing Plaintiff’s
claims of deliberate indifference, but denying the motion in all other respects.
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, this 9th day of February, 2015.
______________________________________
BRIAN A. JACKSON, CHIEF JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
4
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?