INMAN v. RIEBE et al
Filing
35
ORDER adopting in part and rejecting in part 27 Report and Recommended Decision for 16 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim filed by GEORGE STOCKWELL, WENDY RIEBE, ROBERT CLINTON; denying 16 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. By JUDGE JOHN A. WOODCOCK, JR. (MFS)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
FRANK INMAN,
Plaintiff,
v.
WENDY REIBE, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
2:15-cv-00080-JAW
ORDER AFFIRMING IN PART AND REJECTING IN PART THE
RECOMMENDED DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
The United States Magistrate Judge filed with the Court on June 30, 2015 his
Recommended Decision (ECF No. 27).
The Plaintiff filed his objections to the
Recommended Decision on July 8, 2015 (ECF No. 29). The Defendants filed their
response to Plaintiff’s objection to the Recommended Decision on July 27, 2015 (ECF
No. 34).
I have reviewed and considered the Magistrate Judge’s Recommended
Decision, together with the entire record.
I have made a de novo determination of all matters adjudicated by the
Magistrate Judge’s Recommended Decision. With the exception of one issue, I concur
with the recommendations of the United States Magistrate Judge for the reasons set
forth in his Recommended Decision, and determine that no further proceeding is
necessary.
I agree with the Magistrate Judge’s recommendations as to Defendants
Clinton and Stockwell. Furthermore, I concur that Mr. Inman has alleged sufficient
facts to allow an inference of deliberate indifference on Ms. Riebe’s part. However,
because I conclude that Mr. Inman’s Complaint, as supplemented by his objections to
the Recommended Decision, allege enough facts to state a claim against Ms. Riebe, I
reject the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation regarding Mr. Inman’s need for
eyeglasses.
In his Complaint, Mr. Inman stated that his eyeglasses were broken and that
Ms. Riebe was authorized in July 2014 to get eyeglasses for Mr. Inman but had not
done so by March 2015.
Compl. at 3 (ECF No. 1).
In his Objection to the
Recommended Decision, Mr. Inman added allegations regarding the status of his
eyeglasses and the nature of his uncorrected eyesight. He stated that his glasses
have been unusable since November 2014, that he has been wearing glasses since he
was 14 years old for everything except reading and writing, and that being deprived
of his glasses for seven months has caused worsening eyesight, more frequent
migraines, and increased sensitivity to light.
Pl.’s Objection to Recommended
Decision (ECF No. 29).
Not every inmate deprived of his or her eyeglasses has a claim for a serious
medical condition within the meaning of Eighth Amendment. But it is equally true
that some inmates who are deprived of eyeglasses may have an Eighth Amendment
claim. See Koehl v. Dalsheim, 85 F.3d 86, 88 (2d Cir. 1996); Newman v. Alabama,
503 F.2d 1320, 1331 (5th Cir. 1974) (“severe harm can be occasioned by the
unavailability of eyeglasses”); Kemppainen v. Aransas Cnty. Det. Ctr., 626 F. Supp.
2d 672 (S.D. Tex. 2009). The Koehl Court observed that visual deficiencies such as
2
double vision and the loss of depth perception can “readily cause a person to fall or
walk into objects . . . .” Koehl, 85 F.3d at 88. The District of New Hampshire arrived
at the same conclusion. Palermo v. White, No. 08-cv-126-JL, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
80047, at *15 (D.N.H. Sept. 5, 2008) (“An allegation of inadequate vision care can
support a valid § 1983 action challenging the improper denial of medical care”); Rowe
v. Rivera, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9097, at *20 (D.N.H. June 15, 2000) (“A medically
documented need for eye glasses that is known by the defendants and ignored may
give rise to a claim that the defendants were deliberately indifferent to the plaintiff’s
serious medical need”); see Colwell v. Bannister, 763 F.3d 1060, 1063 (9th Cir. 2014)
(concluding that the Nevada Department of Corrections’ “one eye” policy, allowing
cataract surgery for only one of a prisoner’s eyes was “the paradigm of deliberate
indifference” and was constitutionally infirm).
Other district courts have come to the same conclusion when reviewing
allegations at the motion to dismiss stage. See, e.g., Bruce v. Wilson, 2013 WL
5890793, at *5 (D. Colo. Nov. 4, 2013) (Inmate’s allegations that his lack of eyeglasses
caused painful headaches and deterioration of his vision were sufficient to survive a
motion to dismiss); Johns v. Goord, 2010 WL 3907826, at *4 (N.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2010)
(Inmate’s claim survived a motion to dismiss when he alleged that he suffered from
dry eyes, extreme eye pain, excruciating headaches, a loss of vision, and loss of
balance).
I recognize that a party must make all of his arguments to the Magistrate
Judge, as the Defendants rightfully point out. Based on the very limited allegations
3
in the Complaint, the Magistrate Judge was certainly justified in concluding that Mr.
Inman had not satisfactorily made out an Eighth Amendment claim. However, Mr.
Inman is proceeding pro se, and where he has alleged facts sufficient to survive a
motion to dismiss, even if belatedly, it would be unfair to ignore them.1 Mr. Inman
timely filed his objections to the Recommended Decision pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636,
and the allegations did not differ significantly from the allegations in his Complaint
– they merely provided additional context.
I appreciate that, once Mr. Inman’s condition is better understood, it may turn
out that his pain and vision impairment do not rise to the level of a constitutional
injury. However, it is preferable to address that issue in the context of a motion for
summary judgment where the parties can further develop the record regarding the
nature of Mr. Inman’s uncorrected eyesight, the status of his old pair of glasses, Ms.
Riebe’s promise to obtain new eyeglasses, the progress or lack thereof in procuring
new eyeglasses for Mr. Inman, and the risk, if any, to Mr. Inman from being without
his prescribed eyeglasses. I understand that a prison is not an eyeglass store, that
some inmates should be able to purchase their own lenses, and that the Maine
Correctional Center may be worried that in buying eyeglasses for one inmate, it may
be required to buy eyeglasses for all. If these are some of the Maine Correctional
Center’s concerns, they may be addressed once the record has been developed to
reflect the underlying facts.
Generally, a court must “read the allegations of a pro se complaint liberally, and not dismiss
the action unless it appears ‘beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts . . . which would
entitle him to relief.’” Guerro v. Mulhearn, 498 F.2d 1249, 1256 (1st Cir. 1974) (quoting Haines v.
Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 521 (1972)).
1
4
Of course, in the interim, the Maine Correctional Center may conclude that it
is wiser to supply Mr. Inman with a new pair of eyeglasses than to spend the time,
money, and effort arguing about whether his need for them rises to the level of a
constitutional deprivation.
1. It is therefore ORDERED that the Recommended Decision (ECF No.
27) of the Magistrate Judge be and hereby is AFFIRMED IN PART
AND REJECTED IN PART.
2. It is further ORDERED that the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF
No. 16) be and hereby is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ John A. Woodcock, Jr.
JOHN A. WOODCOCK, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 18th day of August, 2015
5
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?