Getter v. Doe et al

Filing 61

ORDER re 56 MOTION for Summary Judgment. Set Motion Deadlines: (Dr Hagues Supplemental Response due by 5/31/2013) - Signed by Magistrate Judge Mona K. Majzoub. (LBar)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
MICHAEL ALAF GETTER,
Plaintiff,
vs.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 11-CV-12021
DISTRICT JUDGE AVERN COHN
MAGISTRATE JUDGE MONA K. MAJZOUB

JANE DOE #1, and DR. HAGUES,
Defendants.
___________________________________________/
ORDER FOR SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING OF DEFENDANT DR. M. HAGUES’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [56].
This is a pro se action filed by Plaintiff Michael Getter, a Michigan state prisoner, alleging
civil-rights violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Docket no. 1.) The Court has previously dismissed
Plaintiff’s claims against three additional defendants, leaving only Plaintiff’s claims against
Defendants Jane Doe (a nurse employed at the Wayne County Jail at the time of the incident) and
Dr. M. Hagues (a psychiatrist at the Wayne County Jail). (See docket no. 55.) Before the Court is
Defendant Hagues’s Motion for Summary Judgment. (Docket no. 56.) All pretrial matters have
been referred to the undersigned for action. (Docket no. 10).
To simply state Plaintiff’s claim, he asserts that Defendant Doe, on orders from Dr. Hagues,
overmedicated him by adding new medications to treat his bipolar disorder while failing to stop his
old medications. Plaintiff alleges that due to this overmedication, he had nightmares and fell out of
his top bunk, breaking his wrist and a rib. (See, generally, docket no. 55.) In the instant Motion,
Dr. Hagues argues that Plaintiff’s claims fail under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c) because “Plaintiff has not
alleged fact (sic) that if true would show that Dr. Hagues subjectively perceived facts from which
1

to infer substantial risk to the prisoner; further that Dr. Hagues drew this inference; and that while
doing so disregarded that risk.” (Docket no. 56 at 11.) In support of this argument, Dr. Hagues
states that “[w]hen considering the entire medical record of the plaintiff, and the fact that plaintiff
was provided prescriptions for his bipolar and those prescriptions were modified for his everchanging needs, and the total lack of any reference to misdosage or over-medication (sic) warrants
dismissal.” (Id. at 11-12.)
Although not clearly stated, it appears that Dr. Hagues is referring to facts garnered from
Plaintiff’s medical records. (See id. at 8.) Dr. Hagues alleges that a month before Plaintiff’s injury,
he was “complaining of restless sleep and nightmares” and that “[h]e desired a change in medication
since his previous medications he attributed to ‘getting him in a lot of fights.’” (Id.) Dr. Hagues also
states that Plaintiff “complained of increased appetite, sleeplessness and mood swings[,] . . .
voluntarily stopped taking Roboxin and Neurontin,” and was “manipulative . . . in trying to dictate
his housing assignment.” (Id.)
Dr. Hagues’s arguments may have merit, but other than one reference to “Appendix A” of
the Motion, Dr. Hagues has not cited to any evidence in Plaintiff’s medical record to support these
factual allegations. Appendix A is a 165-page, compiled medical record consisting of handwritten
notes and forms from multiple facilities and caregivers. (Docket no. 56-1.) Moreover, many of the
signature blocks have been redacted, so the Court is unable to determine the care in which Dr.
Hagues participated. (See id.) Dr. Hagues relies on “the entire medical record of the plaintiff” to
support the instant Motion. Nevertheless, the Court cannot parse through 165 pages of substantially

2

illegible and irrelevant documentation1 in an attempt to figure out the materials on which Dr. Hagues
relies.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Dr. Hagues must file, on or before May 31, 2013,
a Supplemental Brief in Support of the instant Motion to Dismiss, in which Dr. Hagues must include
citations to specific pages in the medical record that support the arguments therein. Dr. Hagues is
prohibited from raising new arguments in this Supplemental Brief. Failure to comply with this
Order may result in a denial of Dr. Hagues’s Motion for Summary Judgment [56].
NOTICE TO THE PARTIES
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a), the parties have a period of fourteen days from the date of
this Order within which to file any written appeal to the District Judge as may be permissible under
28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1).

Dated: May 10, 2013

s/ Mona K. Majzoub
MONA K. MAJZOUB
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

PROOF OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a copy of this Order was served upon Michael Getter and Counsel of
Record on this date.
Dated: May 10, 2013

s/ Lisa C. Bartlett
Case Manager

1

Appendix A includes, for example, Plaintiff’s “Dental Case Summary.” (Docket no. 561 at 35-38.)
3