Parks v. Correctional Medical Services, Inc. et al

Filing 5

OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT AND CONCLUDING THAT AN APPEAL CANNOT BE TAKEN IN GOOD FAITH. Signed by District Judge Victoria A. Roberts. (CPin)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
LARRY PARKS, # 116705,
Plaintiff,
Case Number: 11-CV-12931
Honorable Victoria A. Roberts

v.
CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL SERVICES,
KAKANI, P.A., D. MORE, L.P.N., BRIAN
DOUGLAS, R.N., and H.U.M,
Defendants.
/

OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT AND
CONCLUDING THAT AN APPEAL CANNOT BE TAKEN IN GOOD FAITH
I. INTRODUCTION
This is a civil rights action brought by a state prisoner pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The
Court granted Plaintiff, Larry Parks, leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Under the Prison
Litigation Reform Act, Pub.L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321 (1996), the Court is required to
dismiss any prisoner action brought under federal law if the Complaint is frivolous, malicious,
fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant
immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2), 1915A; 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c). The Court
must read Plaintiff’s pro se Complaint indulgently, see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520
(1972), and accept his allegations as true, unless they are clearly irrational or wholly incredible.
Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992).
Plaintiff, an inmate at the Gus Harrison Correctional Facility in Adrian, Michigan, filed
this civil rights action naming as Defendants: (1) Correctional Medical Services, Inc., (2)
Kakani, P.A., (3) D. More, L.P.N., (4) Brian Douglas, R.N., and (5) H.U.M.

In his pro se Complaint, Plaintiff states that he had a major medical procedure, spine and
neck surgery, for which he was given pain medication and placed on restrictive medical detail.
While on restrictive work, he re-injured his neck and spine, causing extreme and excruciating
pain. He claims that because of that pain, he had difficulty sleeping, bathing, and even washing
his face and hands. He alleges that he has been denied medical treatment, namely pain
medication for his pain. He seeks monetary damages.
The Court dismisses the Complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted. The Court also concludes that an appeal cannot be taken in good faith.
II. DISCUSSION
A complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted when it is clear that no
relief could be granted under any set of facts that could be proved consistent with the allegations
of the complaint. Jones v. City of Carlisle, 3 F.3d 945, 947 (6th Cir. 1993). To state a claim
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege the violation of a right secured by the federal
Constitution or laws and must show that the deprivation was committed by a person acting under
color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988); Street v. Corr. Corp. of Am., 102 F.3d
810, 814 (6th Cir. 1996). Because § 1983 is a method for vindicating federal rights, not a source
of substantive rights itself, the first step in an action under § 1983 is to identify the specific
constitutional right allegedly infringed. Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266, 271 (1994).
Plaintiff’s claims fall under the Eighth Amendment. The Eighth Amendment prohibits
the infliction of cruel and unusual punishment against those convicted of crimes. U.S. Const.
amend. VIII. The Eighth Amendment obligates prison authorities to provide medical care to
incarcerated individuals, as a failure to provide such care would be inconsistent with
contemporary standards of decency. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 102, 103-04 (1976). The

Eighth Amendment is violated when a prison official is deliberately indifferent to the serious
medical needs of a prisoner. Id. at 104-05; Comstock v. McCrary, 273 F.3d 693, 702 (6th Cir.
2001).
A claim for the deprivation of adequate medical care has an objective and a subjective
component. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994). To satisfy the objective component,
the plaintiff must allege that the medical need at issue is sufficiently serious. Id. In other words,
the inmate must show that he is incarcerated under conditions posing a substantial risk of serious
harm. Id. The objective component of the adequate medical care test is satisfied “[w]here the
seriousness of a prisoner’s needs for medical care is obvious even to a lay person.” Blackmore v.
Kalamazoo Cnty., 390 F.3d 890, 899 (6th Cir. 2004). If, however the need involves “minor
maladies or non-obvious complaints of a serious need for medical care,” Blackmore, 390 F.3d at
898, the inmate must “place verifying medical evidence in the record to establish the detrimental
effect of the delay in medical treatment.” Napier v. Madison Cnty., Ky., 238 F.3d 739, 742 (6th
Cir. 2001) (citing Hill v. Dekalb Reg’l Youth Det. Ctr., 40 F.3d 1176, 1188 (11th Cir. 1994)).
The subjective component requires an inmate to show that prison officials have “a
sufficiently culpable state of mind in denying medical care.” Brown v. Bargery, 207 F.3d 863,
867 (6th Cir. 2000) (citing Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834). Deliberate indifference “entails something
more than mere negligence,” Farmer, 511 U.S. at 835, but can be “satisfied by something less
than acts or omissions for the very purpose of causing harm or with knowledge that harm will
result.” Id. Under Farmer, “the official must both be aware of facts from which the inference
could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists, and he must also draw the
inference.” Id. at 837.
Not every claim by a prisoner that he has received inadequate medical treatment states a

violation of the Eighth Amendment. Estelle, 429 U.S. at 105. As the Supreme Court explained:
[A]n inadvertent failure to provide adequate medical care cannot be said to
constitute an unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain or to be repugnant to the
conscience of mankind. Thus, a complaint that a physician has been negligent in
diagnosing or treating a medical condition does not state a valid claim of medical
mistreatment under the Eighth Amendment. Medical malpractice does not
become a constitutional violation merely because the victim is a prisoner. In
order to state a cognizable claim, a prisoner must allege acts or omissions
sufficiently harmful to evidence deliberate indifference to serious medical needs.
Estelle, 429 U.S. at 105-06 (quotations omitted). Thus, differences in judgment between an
inmate and prison medical personnel regarding the appropriate medical diagnoses or treatment
are not enough to state a deliberate-indifference claim. Sanderfer v. Nichols, 62 F.3d 151,
154-55 (6th Cir. 1995); Ward v. Smith, 100 F.3d 958 (Table), 1996 WL 627724 at *1 (6th Cir.
1996). This is so even if there is an inadequate course of treatment and considerable suffering.
Gabehart v. Chapleau, 110 F.3d 63 (Table), 1997 WL 160322, at *2 (6th Cir. 1997).
The Sixth Circuit distinguishes “between cases where the complaint alleges a complete
denial of medical care and those cases where the claim is that a prisoner received inadequate
medical treatment.” Westlake v. Lucas, 537 F.2d 857, 860 n.5 (6th Cir. 1976). Where, as here,
“a prisoner has received some medical attention and the dispute is over the adequacy of the
treatment, federal courts are generally reluctant to second guess medical judgments and to
constitutionalize claims which sound in state tort law.” Id.; Brock v. Crall, 8 F.App’x 439, 44041 (6th Cir. 2001); Jones v. Martin, 5 F.App’x 434, 436 (6th Cir. 2001); Williams v. Mattson,
221 F.3d 1337 (Table), 2000 WL 924145, at *1 (6th Cir. 2000); Davis v. Ulep, 173 F.3d 854
(Table), 1999 WL 98390, at *1 (6th Cir. 1999); Cain v. Huff, 117 F.3d 1420 (Table), 1997 WL
377029, at *4 (6th Cir. 1997); Gabehart, 1997 WL 160322 at *2.
The Court concludes Plaintiff failed to meet both the objective and the subjective
components to support an Eighth Amendment claim. His complaints are with regard to the

specific treatment received; that does not support an Eighth Amendment claim. The Complaint,
brought almost three years after the initial incident, fails to produce medical proof that he
suffered detrimental effects as a result of Defendants’ treatment or non-treatment of his
condition, or their alleged failure to properly test and refer him to appropriate specialists. As
such, Plaintiff has not demonstrated a sufficiently serious medical need to trigger an Eighth
Amendment violation.
Even if Plaintiff met the objective and the subjective components of his claim, he fails to
demonstrate Defendants were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs. An official acts with
deliberate indifference when he consciously disregards an excessive or substantial risk to inmate
health or safety. Plaintiff has not alleged any facts that would support such a conclusion.
Rather, Plaintiff’s conclusory allegations that Defendants’ treatment of his medical condition
was so cursory as to amount to no treatment at all, is not supported in the Complaint.
Defendants medically evaluated Plaintiff by physically examining him and treating his
complaints, initially with palliative treatment, and then with pain medication.
III. CONCLUSION
Plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES Plaintiff’s Civil Rights Complaint. The Court also
concludes that an appeal from this Order would be frivolous and cannot be taken in good faith.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3); McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 610-11 (6th Cir. 1997).
IT IS ORDERED.

Dated: July 18, 2011

S/Victoria A. Roberts
Victoria A. Roberts
United States District Judge

The undersigned certifies that a copy of this
document was served on the attorneys of record
and Larry Parks by electronic means or U.S. Mail
on July 18, 2011.
s/Carol A. Pinegar
Deputy Clerk