Sanders v. Prator et al

Filing 13

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION re 1 Complaint filed by Kenneth Sanders, Sr: IT IS RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff's complaint be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. 1915(e). Objections to R&R due by 4/16/2009. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark Hornsby on 3/30/09. (crt,Cassanova, M)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA S H R EV E P O RT DIVISION K E N N E T H SANDERS, SR. VERSUS S T E V E PRATOR, ET AL. C I V I L ACTION NO. 08-673-P J U D GE HICKS M A G I S T R A T E JUDGE HORNSBY

R E P O RT AND RECOMMENDATION I n accordance with the standing order of this court, this matter was referred to the u n d e r s ig n e d Magistrate Judge for review, report and recommendation. S T A T E M E N T OF CLAIM Bef o re the Court is a civil rights complaint filed in forma pauperis by pro se plaintiff Ke nneth Sanders, Sr. ("Plaintiff"), pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This complaint was r e c e iv e d and filed in this Court on May 14, 2008. Plaintiff is incarcerated at the Caddo C o r r e c t io n a l Center in Shreveport, Louisiana. He names Steve Prator and Dr. John Doe as defendants. P l a i n ti f f claims that in November 2006, he injured his hand when he passed out at t h e Caddo Correctional Center ("CCC"). He claims he was placed in the infirmary for a day a n d his blood pressure was monitored. He claims his fingers were sprained during the fall. H e claims he was unable to move his fingers because his knuckles were locked in place.

P l a i n ti f f claims that in October 2007, his hand was examined by a doctor at CCC. H e claims he did not notice anything different about his hand until this time. He claims the doctor made an appointment for him to see a doctor at LSU Medical Center. P l a i n ti f f claims that on February 6, 2008, he was examined by a doctor at LSU M e d i c a l Center. He claims the doctor diagnosed him with Reflex Sympathetic Dystrophy. H e claims the doctor told him that he would give him a brace to stretch his fingers and o r d e r e d range of motion exercises. He claims he never received the brace. He claims the d o c t o r told a deputy that his hand was healed and he did not need to return for a follow up visit. P l a i n ti f f claims his hand is in constant pain and he cannot lay his hand flat because h i s knuckles are locked in place. He claims his requests to see a doctor have been denied a n d the staff tells him to do the range of motion exercises that were ordered by the doctor. H e claims the exercises are not improving his condition. Plaintiff admits that he has been g i v e n Tylenol for his pain. He claims a nurse told him that he is being denied medical care b e c a u s e it is too costly. Plaintiff claims the doctor should have broken his knuckles and r es et them. A c c o r d i n g l y, Plaintiff seeks monetary compensation. F o r the following reasons, Plaintiff's complaint should be dismissed.

Page 2 of 7

L A W AND ANALYSIS P l a i n ti f f filed this claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 of the Civil Rights Act which p r o v i d e s redress for persons "deprived of any rights, privileges or immunities" by a person a c t in g under color of state law. The particular right protected under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in matters which concern alleged denial of or inadequate medical care is the Eighth Am endm ent prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. T h e lack of proper inmate medical care rises to the level of a constitutional d e p r i v a t i o n under the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution only if the e v i d e n c e shows that the prison officials showed "deliberate indifference to serious medical nee ds." Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106, 97 S. Ct. 285, 292 (1976); See also Farmer v. B r e n n a n , 511 U.S. 825, 835, 114 S. Ct. 1970, 1978 (1994). It is only deliberate

i n d i f fe r e n c e , "an unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain" or an act "repugnant to the c o n s c i e n ce of mankind," that constitutes conduct proscribed by the Eighth Amendment. Estelle , 429 U.S. at 105-06, 97 S. Ct. at 292; See also Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 96 S . Ct. 2909 (1976). Further, the plaintiff must establish that the defendants possessed a c u l p able state of mind. See Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 297-302, 111 S. Ct. 2321, 2 3 2 3 - 2 7 (1991); Farmer, 511 U.S. at 838-47, 114 S. Ct. at 1979-84. In addition,

d i s a g re e m e n t with the diagnostic measures or methods of treatment afforded by prison offic ials does not state a claim for Eighth Amendment indifference to medical needs. See N o r t o n v. Dimazana, 122 F.3d 286, 292 (5th Cir. 1997). Finally, a prisoner must also allege

Page 3 of 7

a n injury that is more than de minimis, although it need not be significant. See Gomez v. C h a n d l e r, 163 F.3d 921, 924 (5th Cir. 1999). See also Siglar v. Hightower, 112 F.3d 191 (5th Cir. 1997). In this case, after a thorough review of Plaintiff's complaint, read in a light most favo rable to him, the Court finds that the facts alleged do not support a finding of deliberate i n d i f fe r e n c e to serious medical needs. To the contrary, the record demonstrates that De fend ants were attentive to the medical needs of Plaintiff. It has been consistently held t h a t an inmate who has been examined by medical personnel fails to set forth a valid s h o w i n g of deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. Norton v. Dimazana, 122 F.2d 2 8 6 , 292 (5th Cir. 1997); Callaway v. Smith County, 991 F. Supp. 801, 809 (E.D. Tex. 1998); Spears v. McCotter, 766 F.2d 179 (5th Cir. 1985); Mayweather v. Foti, 958 F.2d 91 (5th Cir. 1992). Plaintiff was examined by a doctor at the Caddo Correctional Center and r e f e r re d to a doctor at LSU Medical Center. He was examined by a doctor at LSU Medical Center. He claims the doctor ordered a brace and range of motion exercises for his hand. H e further claims the doctor told the deputy that he did not need to return for a follow up visit because he was healed. Plaintiff admits he was given medication for his pain.

How ever, he disagrees with the medical treatment he received. He claims his knuckles shou ld have been broken and reset. Plaintiff's complaint is devoid of factual allegations that wo uld tend to show Defendants acted with a culpable state of mind or that their actions were " u n necessary and wanton." Furthermore, as previously discussed, disagreement with the

Page 4 of 7

diagn ostic measures or methods of treatment afforded by prison officials does not state a claim for Eighth Amendment indifference to medical needs. Plaintiff's allegations, if accepted as true, may amount to a state law claim for n e g l i g en c e , a tort. However, mere negligence, neglect or medical malpractice does not a m o u n t to a denial of a constitutional right as these actions on the part of Defendants do not r i s e to the level of a constitutional tort. See Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 329-30, 106 S . Ct. 662, 664 (1986); Estelle, 429 U.S. at 106, 97 S. Ct. at 292; Lewis v. Woods, 848 F.2d 6 4 9 , 651 (5th Cir. 1988). The fact that Plaintiff does not believe that his medical treatment w a s as good as it should have been is not a cognizable complaint under the Civil Rights Act. S e e Spears v. McCotter, 766 F.2d 179, 181 (5th Cir. 1985). Prisoners are not

c o n s t it u ti o n a l l y entitled to the best medical care that money can buy. See Mayweather v. Foti , 958 F.2d. 91 (5th Cir. 1992). Accordingly, Plaintiff's medical claim should be d i s m i s s e d with prejudice as frivolous. C O N C L U S IO N B e c a u s e Plaintiff filed this proceeding in forma pauperis ("IFP"), if this Court finds Pl ain tif f's complaint to be frivolous, it may dismiss the complaint as such at any time, before o r after service of process, and before or after answers have been filed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e); Green v. McKaskle, 788 F.2d 1116, 1119 (5th Cir. 1986); Spears v. McCotter, 7 6 6 F.2d 179, 181 (5th Cir. 1985). District courts are vested with extremely broad

d i s c re t i o n in making a determination of whether an IFP proceeding is frivolous and may

Page 5 of 7

d i s m i s s a claim as frivolous if the IFP complaint lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. See Hicks v. Garner, 69 F.3d 22 (5th Cir. 1995); Booker v. Koonce, 2 F.3d 114 (5th Cir. 1993); Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 109 S.Ct. 1827 (1989). F o r the reasons heretofore stated, it is recommended that Plaintiff's complaint be D I S M I SS E D WITH PREJUDICE as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). O B J E C T IO N S U n d e r the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), parties a g g r i e v ed by this recommendation have ten (10) business days from service of this Report a n d Recommendation to file specific, written objections with the Clerk of Court, unless an e x t e n s io n of time is granted under Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b). A party may respond to another party's objection within ten (10) days after being served with a copy thereof. Counsel are d i r e c te d to furnish a courtesy copy of any objections or responses to the District Judge at the t i m e of filing. A party's failure to file written objections to the proposed findings, conclusions and r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s set forth above, within ten (10) days after being served with a copy shall b a r that party, except upon grounds of plain error, from attacking, on appeal, the proposed f a c t u a l findings and legal conclusions that were accepted by the district court and that were n o t objected to by the aforementioned party. See Douglas v. U.S.A.A., 79 F.3d 1415 (5th Cir . 1996) (en banc).

Page 6 of 7

T H U S DONE AND SIGNED, in chambers, in Shreveport, Louisiana, on this 30 th d a y of March, 2009.

Page 7 of 7