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)

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