Houck v. Wexford Health Service, Inc

Filing 50

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge George Jarrod Hazel on 8/15/2017. (c/m 8/15/2017 aos, Deputy Clerk)

Download PDF
FILED '!. ~~:.'~~ IN TIlE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUltt?J'?".~ FOR TIlE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND~' ""'; SOllf"el'll DiI'i.,ioll .IAI\IES E. 1I0UCK, WEXFORD IIEALTII INC., ef III., SOURCES, "I • • • , r. '.... . . " Ci"i1 Action No. C.1II.16.IJB • • Dcfcndants. • elI.: ..- "::u:c • • • ZOIl AUG I 5 A 10: I 5 * Plaintiff, ~;' ; .... , I L •.••.. J • • • • • • • • MEi\IORANDUi\IOI'INION James Houck. an inmate at the Western Correctional against Defendants files this action I larry B. Murphy. Ph.D .. Melanic (jordon. Jonathan I less. Ronald Shane Weber (collecti\'Cly. ("Wexflll'd"). Institution ("'W(T). the "Mental llealth Detcndants"). and Vincent A. Siracusano. 1983. !lJ!'alleged violations dispositi\'C motions. Wexflmillealth Sources. Inc. M.D. Ilouck has filed suit pursuant to 42 U.S.c. ~ of his Eight Amendment rights. Alllkfcndants llil\'C tiled For the fl)lIowing reasons. these motions ",ill be granted ,,'ith the exception or DelCndant Siracusano. I. BACKCROUND A. I'roccduraillistory Ilouek is an inmate ",ho is incarcerated 2016. he filed a Complaint on September 14.2016. by their counsel. JlI'O .\1' at WCI in Cumberland. Maryland. On i\lay 2. pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ~ 1983. ECF No. I." hich he amended at the direction of the Court. ECF NO.3. The Mental llealth DelCndants. tiled a Motion to Dismiss or. in the Alternative. I'vlotion Illl'Sumlllary • Judgmcnt. ECF No. 23. and Iiouck libl and a Motion 1'01'a Preliminary llearing. a Cross-Motion Ii,r Summary Judgmcnt. ECF No. 26. Dclcndant Wcxrord Iiled a Motion to Dismiss. lOCI' No. 29. Houck thcn liled a Motion ror Summary Judgmcnt. Motion to Amcnd thc Complaint. ECF No. 34. Vinccnt A. Siracusano. to Dismiss Ii))' Failurc to Statc a Claim. lOCI' No. 35. In rcsponsc. "Motion I())' Summary Judgmcnt ECF No. 25.' lOCI' I 0.33. and a M.D .. also Iiled a Motion Iiouck lilcd a papcr titled and Rcply," ECF No. 37. \\hich hc latcr supplcmcntcd. ECF No. 38: ECF No. 40. and a Rcsponsc to the Motion to Dismiss I()r Failurc to Statc a Claim. ITF No. 39. B. Factual Background , Thc gravamcn or Iiouck' s Complaint treat his bi-polar disordcr and schiwphrcnia. gynccomastia or enlargcmcnt is that mcdical pnl\'idcrs and thc mcdication prcscribcd Rispcrdal' to causcd him to dcvelop or male brcasts. stomach discoml())'t. and blurrcd vision. ECF No. I at I: IOcr NO.3. Iiouck also allcgcs hc suflcrs li'om high blood prcssure \\hich should bc. but is no1. ehcckcd daily. lOCI' No. I at 1-2: ECF 3 at 4. Iiouck e1aims that hc inl(lI'Illcd Dr. Robustiano Barrera or Rispcrdal' s ncgativc sidc cflccls and askcd Dr. Barrcra to stop prescribing it to him. ECF No. I at 2:' Iiouck asscrts that he has bcen taking Risperdal "I(lr a long timc," ECF NO.3 at 7. Ilc e1aims that hc filed sick call rcquests to thc WCI Mcntal Ilcalth Scrvicc on August 29. 2016. Septembcr 14.20 I 0. June 20. 2016. May 4. 20 I 0. Fcbruary 26. 20 I (). ;vlay 5. 20 I (). December 2015. and December 2. 2015. asking to bc takcn orf Risperdal. ECF NO.3 at 4. lie e1aims that on August 30. 2016. he told "Ms. Karen" about the side e1kcts and asked to stop the Risperdal. lie of Iiouck"s pro Sl' status. the Court liberallv construes Ilouck"s Iilin!!.s. is a brand mlllle for the drug risperidonc. f?isperil!ol1L' ((Jrall?(llIfL')~ M.'\ Y<) Cl ,INIC. http://w\\ w.Jl1ayocl inic .org/drugs-supplclllcnts/rispcridollc-oral-rolilchlcscript ion'drg<:!006 7189 (last visited J LItle 02. 2017). Other brand names ITltl\' also be used for the dnn!. It!. 3 HOlick dmo's Ilot allege he was n,;rcihly administered the d;ug. I I. Mindful 1 Risperdal 2 also asserts that he Iiled an Administrative Remedy Procedure Rcqucst. It/. at 5. As relicL Iiouck sccks damages 01"$10 million or othcr paymcnt./d Houck twenty-cight days to lilc an Amendcd Complaint hc bclic\.cd \V-ercresponsible Court grantcd to providc thc names 01"thc indi\.iduals It)]"thc alleged wrongdoing. 2016. Iiouck liled an Amendcd Complaint ECF NO.2 at I. On Scptcmbcr I~. which namcd as Dcl"cndants "Wcx Iiml llealth Scrviccs Inc. and by thc Makcr 01"Mcdication by Mcntaillealth at 3. On August 23. 2016.thc Rispcrdal. Inc. by IIcalth Care Stal"f at WCI and Servicc Stal"I"at WCI by Medical Dcpartmcnt of Psychology Scrviccs at WCI." ECF NO.3 at I. Mindful that Iiouck is scl1~rcprcsentcd about suffering ncgative side efl"ects li'omusing and has madc rcpcatcd cm".ts to raisc allcgations Rispcrdal.' and that in anothcr casc. Houck \'. /Vex/1m/Health Sources. /nL".. Civil Action No. GJH-15-3639 Barrcra's (D. Md. 2(16). Wcxl<mlliletl Dr. affidavit in which Dr. Barrera statcs that Wcxl<lrd docs not pro\.idc mcntal health scrviccs to Maryland inmatcs and that WC:.;\<lrd cmployccs mcntal hcalth medication arc not authorizcd to altcr Houck's rcgimcn.; thc Court dircctcd counsel It1l"the DPSCS to submit thc namc 01"thc dircctor of mental hcalth scrviccs as well as thc namcs 01"Iiouck' s trcating psychiatrist psychologist at WCI. ECF NO.7 at 1-2. Counscl rcspondcd on Octobcr 7.2016. that rcsponsc. and bas cd on Ronald S. Wcber. who was dircctor of mental hcalth scn.ices at WCI until Scptcmbcr 16.2016. Mclanic Gordon. thc currcnt dircctor 01"WClmcntal psychiatrist Vinccnt Siracusano. MD. psychologist hcalth scrviccs. Jonathan IIcss. MA. and supcn'ising I See e.g Civil /let ions Nos. G!H-15-1 XX3(D. Md. 2(15). G.lII-15-1912 (D. f\td. 2(15). (;.111-15-2051(D. Md. 2(15). G.lII-15-3639 (D. Md. 2(16). 'See Civil /lei ion No. G.lII-15-3639 (D. Md. 2(16). ECF No. 31-5. On November 7. 2016. the C01ll1 "ranled Defendants \Vexford Health Sources. Inc. and Dr. Barrera"s Motion for SUlllmar\' Jud!.!.lllcnt and !!ranl;d Iiouch: twenty-eig.ht days to provide additional inl(lI"Ination 10 obtain service on the indi~"iJuals \\110 prcs~ribcd the medication Risperdal. ECF No. 56. HOllck f~lilcd respond <lnd. 011 December 12. 2016. the case was dismissed to without prcjllllice. ECF No. 57. 3 and psychologist Dr. I larry Murphy wcre added as Defendants at the direetion or the Court. See ECF Nos. 9. I 1 at I. 1 1-1 at 2. Houek has liled two Motions to Amend the Complaint. Motion to Amend the Complaint. Pharmaeeuticals Rispcrdal. Iiled on Mareh or New Jersey ("'Jansscn"). as a [)clendant n. 2017. ECF No. 34: lOCI' NO.4!. Ilouck asks to add Janssen a priyate corporation in this procccding. In his and the manul~lcturer or but docs not idcntiry a Icgal basis li)r his rcqucst. lOCI' No. 34. To state a yiable elaim li)r relier undcr ~ 1983. Houck must allcgc that Janssen depriyed him of his constitutional ,lfllllllji"'llIl"ers ,lflllllulllls, 487 U,S, 42. 48 (1988). where the challenged ('0" rights while acting undcr color or state 1<1\\'. ee 11111. S ('0. \'. SlIlli\'llll, 526 U,S, 40. 49-50 (1999): see also II'esl \', Illkim. Priyate action may be deemed state action. lil!' purposes or ~ 1983, only conduct may "be 1~lirly attributablc to the State."' 1,IIgal" \'. Edl/lIl/lll.\DII Oil 457 U,S, 922. 937 (1982). Hcre. Iiouck has not alleged lacts to support a claim that Jansscn was acting under color of law, Consequently. the Motion to Amend the Complaint. lOCI' No, 34. will be denied as lillilc. Houck's a Defendant second Motion li)r Leaye to Amend the Complaint in this casc. ECF No, 41 at I, As Dr. Siracusano is already a defcndant. ECF No, 41. will be dcnied as moot. Iiouck also filed two virtually Preliminary hearings lil!' criminal preliminary II. Hearing, asks to add Dr. Siracusano identical as the i\lotion. i\lotions Ii,r a ECF No. 26: lOCI' No, 43, The Motions pertain to statc preliminary delcndants and provide no 1~lctual or legal basis Ii»' conducting hearing in this case. Consequently. thc Court will deny both Motions, a Id STANDAI{D OF I{F:VI F:W A complaintlails claim showing to state a claim irit does not contain "a short and plain statement or the that the pleader is entitled to reliel:" Fed. R. Ci\'. 1', 8(a)(2). or docs not state "a claim for relief." Asllcro/i plausible \'. "limlllhil'. supported \'. "lh"l. 556 U.S. 662. 677-78 550 U.S. 544. 555 (2007)). "Threadbare by mere conclusory statcmcnts. recitals ofthc (2009) (citing nell ,.111. "I' ('Of elemcnts ofa causc of action. Asllcro/i. 556 U.S. at 678 (citing do not suflicc:' T\I'("l1h~l'. 550 U.S. at 555). Though thc plaintilT is not rcquircd to li)rccast c\'idcncc elcmcnts ofthc claim ... thc complaint must allegc suflicicnt nlcts to cstablish" (ioss r. 1J,,"k o(AIIl .. iVA .. 917 F. Supp. 2d 445. 449 (D. Md. 2(13) (quoting ,\/c,\/"lIel1. 684 F.3d 435. 439 (4th Cir. 2(12)). App'x 165 (4th Cir. 2(13). Thc pleadings and hcld to a less stringent 551 U,S. 89.94 standard "Irdsl/h (2007) (citing ESlelle \'. (j"lIlhle, 12(b)(6) motion. the Court must construe each e1cmcnt. See II'"II<'I's \'. II/lllf .. (joss r. n"l1k ()/,/Ill .. N.'1. 546 F. ofsell~rcprcsentcd than pleadings to pn)\'c thc litigants arc "Iibcrally construcd" dralicd by lawyers. See Erick.mll \', I'"rdl/s. 429U,S, the Complaint 97.106 (1976)), In considcring a Rulc in the light most I~l\'orable to thc I'lai nti ff and take the 1~ICtS asscrted as true, See II"rrisoll \'. Weslil1gllol/.le S"I'l/I1Il,,1I II ir<'l' ( '0 .. 176 F,3d 776. 783 (4th Cir. 19(9) (citing ,\~d"l1l."hs .. 111<'. ,\/"Ik"ri, \', 7 F.3d 1130. 1134 (4th Cir. 1(93)), "When 'matters [ 12( b)( 6 ) jmotion Rule 56, ... I."I/gillill (quoting mo\'ing outsidc the pleading are prescntcd shall bc trcatcd as onc till' summary j udgmcnt and disposcd \', '\/elro. W"sh. A irfJ0I'/S AI/III .. 149 F.3d 253. 260-61 Fcd. R. Ci,',I', "is cntitlcd to judgmcnt by thc court. thc 0 I'as pr()\'idcd in (4th Cir. 19(8) 12(b)), Undcr Rule 56(a). thc Court must grant summary judgment party dcmonstrates summary judgment. to and not cxcludcd therc is no gcnuinc issue as to allY material 1~ICt nd thc m()\'ing party a as a mattcr of la\\':' Fcd, R. Ci\', 1', 56(a), In rc\'iclling the Court must draw alljustiliable infercnccs a motion li)r in the non-moving party's favor. See A /fller.ml1 \'. I.i ha/l'. I.ohh\', Illc .. 477 U, S, 242. 255 ( I (86) (ci ti nl! ." dickes \'. .'I II . ~ Kress & Co,. 398 U.S, 144. 158-59 ( 1(70)), 5 ifthc Oncc a motion for summary judgment party has the burden of showing is properly made and supported. that a genuine dispute exists. See ,\I"/sllshi/,, Zenilh R"dio Corp,. 475 U,S, 574. 586-87 (1 (86), "ITJhe mere existence dispute betwcen the parties will not defeat an otherwise judgment: the requirement at 247-48 (emphasis A "materiallileC' party's case. Id. at 248: sec "Iso .IKC I/oldillg showing a properly inferences credibility." 249 FJd 259. 265 (4th Cir. 2001 motion Itll' summary judgment in original) (quoting \\'ithout weighing also abide by the "aflinnative lactually unsupported claims and defenses (quoting Drell'ill Fed, R. Civ, 1'. 56(e)), The Court the evidencc obligation from proceeding ", /'rall. 999 F,2d 774. 778-79 If the parties have filed cross-motions or assessing the witness' marks omittcd), '''Both of the trial judgc to prC\'Cnl to trial." BOllclwl. 346 F,3d at 526 Itlr summary judgment. on its own merits to determine a genuine dispute of material and draw all (4th Cir. 1993»), the Court "must consider whether either of the partics deserv'es .jud!!ment as a mattcr of law." B"('(1/7 ", Cill' o(RiclllllOml, ~ . . quotation 'may not rest Co/fe/oll ,lied Or .. IlIc .. 290 FJd 639. 645 (4th Cir. 20(2), The court must. however. (intcrnal »). but rather must 'set Itlrth speei lic li,cts in the light mosl li,vorable to . , , the nonmovant. inlhisllavor 477 U.S. BOlle/WI \'. B"I/, RIII'en,' Foolh,,11 ('/lIh, IlIc .. 346 issue Itlr trial:" Denllis ,', CollI/llhi" each motion separately motion Itlr summary Co, ,', /I'"sh. Sports I 'ell/llr"-,, ll1c.. 264 F,3d 459. supported F.3d 514. 525 (4th Cir. 2(03) (alteration reasonablc properly supported or denials of I his J pleadings: that there is a genuine should "vicw the evidcnee of so/Ill' alleged liletual is one that might affect the outcome ofa 465 (4th Cir. 2(01) (citing f-/oo\'CII-I.C\ris ", C"ldcra. upon the mere allegations Dec. IlIdllS, Co, ", is that there be no genllille issue of /II,,/eri,,1 lilet." ,llldersoll. in original), "A party opposing the opposing 475 F,3d 633. 637-38 (4th Cir. 2(07) motions must be denied ifthc court limls that there is fact. But if there is no genuine dispute and one or the other party is 6 entitled to prevail as a matter orla\\'. ELII-14-928. 2016 WL 7426139. the court will renderjudgment. at *5 (D, Md, Dec. 23. 2016) (quoting Wright & Arthur R. Miller. Fedem/Pmclice III. ... !licks \', S/lIlItiml. alld Procedure No. lOA Charles Alan ~ 2720 (4th cd. )). I>ISCUSSION A. Mental Health I>efendants' Summary,Jud/(ment In order to demonstrate Eighth Amendment. constitutionally a prisoner 1(98) (quoting culpable medical care in violation ..( 1) that objecti\'e1y serious. and (2) that subjectively state or mind." See .Johnsol/ \'. Quillol/es. and the subjecti\'e . .'. It/. "[DJelibcrate [but] is sat is lied by something indifference less than acts or omissions or the the deprivation element "is satisfied by showing deliberatc more than mere negligence Il)r the very purpose or causing harm or with knowledge that harm \\ill result." /d, (quoting ( 1(94)), Deliberate indi rrerenee to a serious medical need requires proor that. ohjecti\'e1y. prisoner was suffering available, shock the conscience cxeessive the prison starr \\'as ,marc but lililecl either to provide it or ensure the needed care \\'iIS See Farlller. 511 U.S. at 837. The trcatment 848.851 Forlller \', Brel/I/al/. 51\ U.S. 825. 835 fi'om a serious medical need and that. suhjecti\'ely. or the need lor medical attention or 145 F,3d 164. I()7 (4th Cir. element "is satislied entails something for the prison ofticiais acted lVi/sol/ \'. Seiler. 501 U.S. 294. 298 (1991 )). The objective by a serious medical condition." indifTercnce, inadequate must prove tm) clements: a basic human need was sufticiently with a sufticiently Motion to I>ismiss or, in the Alternative provided "must be so grossly incompetent. or to be intolerable to fill1damentalfilirness," (4th Cir. 1(90) (citation omitted). A defendant could be drawn that a substantial 7 or e"cessi\'e as to See ,lli/lier \'. /IeOI'll. 896 F,2d must know orand risk to inmate health or salety, "[Tlhe [Derendantjmust which the inference inadequate. disregard an both be aware orlilcts rrom risk or serious harm exists and he must also draw the inference:' declarations 511 U.S. at 837. The Mentaillealth Fal"III<'I'. that they did not preserihe 5. Defendant Risperdal R. Shane Weber. f<Hlner WCI Supervisor does not prescrihe medication that Dr. Siraeusano prescrihed psychotropic by a lieensed psyehiatrist. that all psychotropic medications psychology are monitored associate. medieations. provided an ARP concerning talked to Siracusano. prescrihed Judgment. the side effects he allrihutes on Septemher Ilouek's Risperdal. and and MIIM Services. Director of Melllaillealth Services. Ii.)r inmates are prescribed Inc. Id Jonathan the Risperdal. to Risperdal. and I less. a correctional medication. ECF No. Id Iiouck reasserts that he libl hut does not state the date or suhstance filed a numher of allachments sick call slip stampcd preserihed are prescribed as it is beyond the scope of his license as a hy MIIM Services. Ii.)r Summary Professional medications allests that he does not have a license to prescrihe In his Cross-Motion allests that he allests that she is not through the psychiatrist Regional Assistant 23-5. I less states that Dr. Siraeusano 2. Iiouck and that psychotropic ECF No. 23-4. i\lurphy states that medications hy a psychiatrist Services. Counselor-Supervisor. Gordon states that Dr. Siraeusano allests that he does not prescrihe monitored of Psychological hy the DPSCS as a Mental llealth medications Inc." ECF No. 23-3. Harry Murphy. psychologist. ECF Nos. 23-2. 23-3. 23-.!. and 23- It)r flouck. Id Risperdal and is Acting Mental Health Professional licensed to prescrihe state in heeause he is not licensed to do so. ECF No. 23-2. Weher states Mclanie Gordon. who is employed Counsclor for Ilouck. Defendants sick call slips and ECF No. 25. lie claims that he of the cOI1\'Crsation. ECF No. 25 at with the Motion. For instancc. Iiouck tiled a copy or a 16.2016. asking to he taken olTRisperdal hecause it was The COLIrt lakes notice that ~:llIMServices. Inc .. contracts with the DPSCS to pnl\'ide mental 11l'alth sen'ices 10 inmates in Maryland correctional facilities. ,r..,°ee Le\T \', lI'ex/iJrd lIea/Jh .\'ouret's. IHe.. Civil Action No. TDC-I-t- h 367& (D. Md.). . . causing him breast enlargcment and blurrcd vision. ECF No. 25-1. Illnw,.cr. thc Court is unahle to disccrn thc namc of thc mental health providcr who signcd thc rcsponsc "hich a,h.iscd IlouCK to discuss his conccrns at his next scheduled appointmcnt. datcd January !d Sccond. Iiouck tiled a sicK call slip I I. 2017. aSKing to hc taKcn off Risperdal duc to gynccomastia and hlurrcd ,.ision. ECF No. 25-2. Thc sicK call slip. hll\,.evcr lacKs a rcccipt stamp or thc signaturc of a mcdical or mental health providcr to cvidencc rcccipt. !d Third. IloucK lilcd onc pagc li'0111his mcdical rccord datcd March 12. 2015. showing that he was prcscrihcd R isperidone. of hypcrtension and its managcmcnt. and was prcscrihcd medication prcssurc. ECF No. 25-3. Fourth. IloucK tiled a mcmorandum posscsscs Knowledgc to managc his high hlood Ii.om J.D. I less 10 IloucK. datcd March 25. 2015. "hicl! reads that according to thc medical tile IloucK "as prcscrihcd Rcsperidol7 2 mg t"icc daily. ECF No. 25-4. Finally. IlouCK tilcd ARI' \\'CI-0441-1 6. stampcd March 1. 2016. alleging that IloucK was cxpcriencing hlurrcd vision and cnlargcd hrcasts duc to Risperdal and was not rccciving daily hlood pressurc chccKs. ECF No. 25-5. The ARI' ,"as dismisscd on Fcbruary 29. 2016. Ii)!"li!ilurc to resubmit thc requcst in accordancc coordinator's instructions. 1<1. IloucK docs not claim hc noti Iicd thcsc mental health practitioncrs x rcgard to Risperdal 2.2016. "ith the ARI' or his necd li1l"hlood prcssure monitoring. ECF No.1. his Scptembcr of his conccrns in As IloucK lilcd this casc on May 16.2016 sicK call slip. ECF No. 25-1. which "as liled tillir months latcr. has no bearing on whethcr thc Mcntal I lealth Dcfcndants wcrc awarc of thc negati,'e sidc cffects allcgcdly caused hy Rispcrdal or blood prcssurc conccrns during thc timc at issuc. Further. the Mcntal Ilcalth Defendants attcst unititrlnly that thcy werc not authorizcd to Thc Court assumes that Rispcridol is another name for Kispcridollc. concerning blood pressure arc medical issues enlrustcd to medical praclitiollt.'rs at weI. In /loud.; ", tI'e.\/iwd. Civil Action No. GJII-15-3639 (D. Md. 2016). the Court !.!,rantcd Slllllllwrv jud!.!,I1ll'11till 1:1\'01' or \\'I..,,,ror<.l and Dr. Barrera as 10 !louck's Eighth Amendment claim regarding laL:I\ of daily bh;o~l pl~sslln.'monitoring by i lIMatters medical pn.widcrs. 9 prcscribc, Iiouck or prcsumably to discontinuc, is not able to providc cvidcncc Assuming subjccth'c that Houck's componcnt Mcntaillealth any conccrn, Houck's Thus, cvcn I\"hcn Iiouck's constitutional allcgations issuc of matcrial rights, Accordingly, I\"ill bc grantcd, standard Houck I~lils to satislY thc bccausc hc docs not shol\" thc nor did thcy hm'c thc ability to addrcss arc vic\wd in the lightmostl~l\"(lrable nlCt as to I\"hcthcr thc Mcntal llealth and actcd ,,'jth rccklcss disrcgard thc Mentailicalth lOCI' No. 23, Iiouck's to him, Providcrs' Cross-Motion in \'iolation of Motion I'll" Summary 1,)1' Summary Judgmcnt "ill bc ECF No, 25." B, \Vcxfnrd's Motion to Dismiss Wcxf(ml asscrts that Iiouck's jl/diwIII. indiffercncc kncl\" of his scrious mcdicalnccd Judgment dcnied, to thc contrary. "crc al\"arc of his condition, hc fails to shol\" thcrc is a genuinc Dctcndants lOCI' Nos, 23-2, 23-3, 23-,1. and 23-5, and allcgcd sidc cffects arc scrious, of thc delibcratc Dcfendants Rispcrdal. lOCI' No. 29-2, {?e,\jl/diwIII e1aims arc barrcd by thc aflinnativc dcfcnsc ofl"~s is a Icgal doctrinc that "bars a party from relitigating a claim that I\"as dccidcd or could havc becn dccidcd in an original suit." 1.1I1/I"~1 SIII1<I & (iran'l. 111(". , WilsOIl, 519 F3d " '''( I) a Iinaljudgmcnt 156, 161 (4th Cir. 2(08), For rcsjudicata to bc cstablishcd on thc mcrits in a prior suit. (2) an idcntity ofthc thcrc must bc causc of action in both thc carlicr and thc latcr suit. and (3) an identity of partics or their privics in thc tm) suits ... '" S~e Pellsioll Hell. (iI/III". ('0'1). ."'.I:'.C .. 115 F.3d lIn, 1'. He\'elky, 404 F3d 243, 248 (4th Cir. 20(5) (quoting .!OIl~S \". 1178 (4th Cir. 19(7)), Resjl/diwIII prccludcsa claim alicrajudgmcnt thc mcrits in a prior suit by thc samc partics on thc samc causc of action, Se~ ,\teekim TramjJ, Ullioll, 946 F.2d 1054, 1057 (4th Cir. 1(91) (citin!! ttllmet/\". Hitllllllll, on \', lJ"lIi/~d 800 F,2d U08, Notably. IfOLIc" asks to "dismiss the Complaint on Defcndants Ilarry B. Murphy. Ph.D .. iYklanic Gordon. Jonathan Hess and R. Shane Weber. in his Motions for SUllImary Judgmenl. ECF No. 33 at 3: Eel" No. 37 al J. lilet! alkr Wc\ford filed its Motion to Dismiss. '1 10 1312 (4th Cir. 1986». In addition. '''Inlot only does res,ill<liClllll bar elaims that \\l:re raised and fully litigated. it prevents litigation of all grounds li,r. or defenses to. recovery that "ere previously available to the parties. regardless of whether they ".ere asserted or determined in the prior proceeding .... !d. (quoting Pellgeol Alolors o(AIII .. II/C. \'. f...11110 Dislri!> .. II/C.. 892 1:.2d 355.359 (4th Cir. 1989»). Wex!imi argues that in an earlier libl suit.l!ollck \'. lI"e.r(iml. 3639 (D, Md. 2(16). Houck alleged that Wexiimi and its employee rights under the Eighth Amendment by acting with deliberate Civil Action No. (;.111-15- Dr. Harn:ra violated his indifference to his serious medical needs. ECF No, 29-2 at 2. Iiouck alleged. as he does here. that he was prescribed treat his bi-polar disorder and schizophrenia. that the medication Risperdal to caused him gynecomastia and other negati,.e side effects. and that his blood pressure was not checked daily. 1<1. On April 26. 2016. Wexlim! and Dr. Barrera filed a Motion to Dismiss or. in the Alternative Judgment supported aflidm'it. filr Summary by Dr. Barrera' s aflidavit and Houck' s veri lied medical records. In his Dr. Harrera attested that he did not prescribe Risperdal for Iiouck. did not have authority to alter Iiouck's him about Risperdal's mental health medication regimen. that Iiouck ne'.er complained to sidc el'ICcts. and had he been made aware by Ilouek of these concerns. Dr. Barrera would have relcrred Ilouek to his treating mental health providers. See Ilollck. (;.111-15- 3639 (ECF No. 31-5 at 2). Dr. Barrera also stated that Ilouek is regularly evaluated by prison medical providers as a chronic care inmate. and prescribed multiple medications No. 31-5 at 2-4), Medical providers cheek \Iouek's medications. necessary. and monitor his compliance to manage his blood pressure. !d (ECF blood pressure. re"iew his blood pressure with medical orders. !d, Daily monitoring because Ilouek is on an appropriate drug regimen lilr hypertension. 11 These is not m~di~ations includ~ At~nolol. stat~d that Ilou~k's Norvas~. Lisinopril. hyp~rt~nsion and Clonidin~ IICL. Id Furth~r. Dr. Ilarrna is pl"Op~rly ~011l1"01I~d \\h~n h~ ~omplks plan of ~ar~. Id Ilou~k lil~d no anidavits or oth~r ~xhibits to r~fut~ Dr. Ilarr~ra's m~di~al r~~ords liled by W~xll,rd and Dr. Ilarr~ra in support ofth~ir Nov~mb~r 7. 2016. this Court grant~d W~x!t,rd and Dr. Ilarr~ra's .Iudgm~nt as to both claims. See Ilollck. G.lII-15-3639 dispositi\T Motion!tlr anidm'it pleading. cntcrcd. Conscqucntly. On Summary on th~ m~rits in th~ prior Ilou~k raiscd thc samc claims hcrc as in in his prior ~asc. Ilollck \'. 1I'ex/iml. Ci\'il A~tion No. G.lII.15-3(,39. WcxltmL III and (3) an id~ntity ofth~ parti~s or th~ir pri\'i~s. See '\/eekills. 946 F.2d at 1057. Wexltml satislics all thrc~ rcquircmcnts. samc Dcfendant. or th~ (ECF No. 55: see also ECF No. 5(,). To ~stablish resjll<!ica/a. th~r~ must b~ (I) a linaljudgm~nt suit: (2) an id~ntity ofth~ ~aus~ ofa~tion: \\ith his hyp~rt~nsion and that casc \\as ~onsidcrcd against th~ on thc mcrits. and a Iinaljudgmcnt \\as thc claims raiscd against Wcxlt)rd arc barrcd by resjll<!ica/a. and thc Motion to Dismiss will bc granted. C. Dr. Siracusano's Motion to Dismiss Finally. Dr. Sira~usano mo\'es to dismiss the Iiouck's statc a claim upon whi~h rclicfmay immunity. II ECF No. 35. lie asserts thcrc are no factual allcgations mcntal hcalth physician Complaint Itlr lililur~ to bc grantcd. and asscrts that hc is cntitled to qualilicd wl"Ongdoing or to support an Eighth Amcndmcnt was Ilou~k's Amcndcd claim of dclibcrat~ to support a claim of indi!Tcr~n~c. Sira~usano at all times rclevant to thc Complaint. Iiouck allegcs hc was prcs~ribcd Rispcrdal ECF No. 35 at 1.5. "Itlr a long timc," and thc drug eaused him IliA court may tal.:cjudicial notice of the facts from prior judicial proceedings where. as here. there is no challenge to the accuracy of the record of those proceedings. Tl.1ylor ", ,\Io!'go" ,\"all.' UI1i1'L.,..\i~l'. Civil Action No. \VMN.032978. 2004 \VL 3217859 n. I (D. Md. May 25. 20(4) (citing Briggs 1', .vclI'hen:\' ('of/m.l' ,\"('110(" [Jist .. 838 F. Supp. 2:;2.2:;-1 (D.S.C. t992)). IIDr. SinJclIsano's generally stated assertion of qualified imlllunity is insufficient for the Court 10 rule on this defensc" ECF No. 23-1 at 8-9. Dr. Siracusano milV reassert thc defellse when he lilcs his Motion for SUIllIll,U"'. Judgment pursuanl 10 the scheduling order to rollo~\' this l'v1cmOri.llldulIl Opinion. . 12 various negative side effects including Iiouck documents off Risperdal. Siracusano that he was prescribed Risperdal claims in his Motions effects he attributcs antdavits to be takcn indicatc that t() discontinuc thc and January 30. 2017. due to ncgativc sidc ECF No. 33 at 2: lOCI' No. 37 at 2. Iiouck's that he notilied Dr. Siracusano Reply. about Rispcrdal and thc side effects Iiouck experienced. claim lor rclieC and Dr. Siracusano's No. 35. will be denicd. Viewing clear there are genuinc medical conccrns. lorcibly administercd actions in allegedly indifferenee. Iiouck's in dispute including. what actions Dr. Siracusano Rispcrdal continuing Aceordingly. ECF took in responsc. despite Ilouek's the Court shall deny Iiouck's but not limitcd to. "hcther when Siracusano or able to dccline the medication. the prcscription Motion to Dismiss. in thc light most 1[1\'()rable to him. it is also to thc negativc sidc etkcts. No. 33: ECF No. 37. subject to rcnewal. . IV. allegations issues ofmateriall[lct Houck alerted Dr. Siracusano "as alertcd to whcthcr Iiouck ""as and whether Dr. Siracusano's coneerns amounted Motions Il)r Summary to deliberate Judgment. ECF A schedulin~ ~order shall issue. CONCLUSION For the loregoing Alternativc. rcasons. the Mental Health Defcndants' Motion Illr Summary No. 23. is grantcd. Wexford DeICndants' that he asked Siracusano I 1.2017. to using the mcdication. Iiouck states a plausible Iiouck's Judgment 5. 2016. January ECI' No. 37. repeats his allcgations negati,'e at WCI. and that he rcqucsted for Houck. ECF Nos. 23-1. 23-2. 23-3. 23-4. and 23-5. Iiouck Il)r Summary on Deccmber and blurrcd vision. lOCI' NO.1: ECI' NO.3. Rispcridone I".: ECF No. 25-3. The Mentaillealth prescribed Risperdal gynecomastia Iiouck's Health Sourccs. Judgment. 10 Dismiss or. in the treated as a Motion Il)r Summary Cross Motion tl)r Summary Inc:s Motion Motion to Dismiss. Judgmcnt. Judgment. ECF No. 25. is denicd. ECI' No. 29. is granted. Dr. Vincent lOCI' Siracusano's Motion to Dismiss. ECF No. 35. is denied and a scheduling ordcr shall issue. Houck's Motions for a Preliminary Hearing. ECF No. 26: ECF No. 43. are dcnied. Houck's Motions for Summary Judgment. Ecr No. 33: ECF No. 37. are denied without prcjudicc. Houck's Motion to Amend the Complaint. ECF No. 34. to add Janssen I'hannaccuticals as a Defendant is denied. Houck's Motion to Amend the Complaint to add Dr. Siracusano as a Defendant. Ecr No. 41. is denied as moot. A separate Order follows. 4/1-- ~ /15/20(7 Date GEORGE J. HAZEL United States District Judgc 14

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?