Hall v. Dodman et al

Filing 15

ORDER denying 10 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by District Judge Paul D. Borman. (DTof)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

DENNIS HALL,
Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 13-13859

v.
RICHARD M. DODMAN, R.N.,
and WILLIAM C. BORGERDING, D.O.,

PAUL D. BORMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Defendants.
___________________________________/
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (dkt. #10)
I. INTRODUCTION
On September 10, 2013, plaintiff Dennis Hall filed a pro se civil rights complaint against
Richard M. Dodman, R.N., and William C. Borgerding, D.O. Plaintiff is a state prisoner, and his
complaint alleged that, in 2007, state correctional officials granted him a medical
accommodation so that he could wear prescription athletic shoes, which he requested due to
injuries to his feet and deformities in his foot and ankle. The shoes were issued in 2008, and the
medical accommodation was re-issued every six months thereafter. On June 14, 2011, however,
defendant Dodman declined to re-issue the medical accommodation, and, on September 9, 2011,
defendant Borgerding upheld Dodman’s decision.
Plaintiff alleged in his civil rights complaint that defendant Dodman intentionally
misrepresented his medical condition and that defendant Borgerding denied his request for the
medical accommodation without personally examining him or ordering alternative treatment.
Plaintiff argued that the defendants’ conduct amounted to deliberate indifference to a serious
medical condition in violation of his rights under the Eighth Amendment to the United States

Constitution.
On December 23, 2013, the Court summarily dismissed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. §§
1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b)(1) because the complaint lacked an arguable basis in law and failed
to state a plausible claim for which relief could be granted. The Court stated that Plaintiff had
failed to establish an Eighth Amendment claim by showing that he had a serious medical need
and that the defendants had a culpable state of mind. Currently pending before the Court is
Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the Court’s order of dismissal.
II. DISCUSSION
Plaintiff filed his motion for reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e).
“A district court may alter or amend a judgment under Civil Rule 59(e) to correct a clear error of
law; account for newly discovered evidence or an intervening change in the controlling law; or
otherwise prevent manifest injustice.” Heil Co. v. Evanston Ins. Co., 690 F.3d 722, 728 (6th Cir.
2012). This District’s Local Rule 7.1(h) also allows a party to move for reconsideration, but the
rule requires the movant to “show both that there is a palpable defect in the opinion and that
correcting the defect will result in a different disposition of the case.” Indah v. U.S. S.E.C., 661
F.3d 914, 924 (6th Cir. 2011). “A ‘palpable defect’ is a defect that is obvious, clear,
unmistakable, manifest, or plain.” Witzke v. Hiller, 972 F. Supp. 426, 427 (E.D. Mich. 1997).
A. The Absence of Discovery
Plaintiff alleges that the Court erred by making a decision on his complaint without the
benefit of discovery, a supplemental brief from him, or an amended complaint. According to
Plaintiff, discovery and additional documents would have demonstrated that defendant
Borgerding’s observation – that Plaintiff could play basketball without prescription shoes – was

2

unfounded.
While it is true that the Court summarily dismissed the complaint without serving it on
the defendants and without waiting for Plaintiff’s brief, amended complaint, or discovery, the
Court thoroughly reviewed the complaint. The Court also reviewed the attachments to the
complaint, which included: Plaintiff’s state complaint for the writ of mandamus, an answer to
the state complaint, and the state court’s order denying the complaint; Plaintiff’s grievance and
the responses; Plaintiff’s medical “kites” and the responses; a nurse protocol; and clinical
progress notes.
Furthermore, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(A)(a) requires district courts to review and screen a
prisoner’s complaint against a governmental entity, officer, or employee “before docketing, if
feasible or, in any event, as soon as practicable after docketing.” District courts must dismiss all
or any portion of a prisoner’s civil rights complaint against a governmental entity, officer, or
employee if the allegations (1) are frivolous, malicious, or fail to state a claim for which relief
may be granted, or (2) seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.
Smith v. Campbell, 250 F.3d 1032, 1036 (6th Cir. 2001) (citing 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and
1915A). The Court, therefore, did not err when it screened and dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint
without the benefit of a supporting brief, an amended complaint, an answer, or discovery.
B. The Adequacy of Treatment
Next, Plaintiff alleges that the Court failed to consider whether the medical treatment he
received was “so woefully inadequate as to amount to no treatment at all.” Westlake v. Lucas,
537 F.2d 857, 860 n. 5 (6th Cir. 1976). The Court did acknowledge in its order of dismissal that
interruption of a prescribed plan of treatment could manifest deliberate indifference to a serious

3

medical need and constitute a violation of the Eighth Amendment. Dkt. #8, at 4. The Court
nevertheless determined from the facts, as alleged in the complaint and attachments, that Plaintiff
had not established a serious medical need mandating treatment. The Court also determined that
the defendants did not have a sufficiently culpable state of mind and that Plaintiff’s allegations
established nothing more than a difference of opinion about whether he needed a medical
accommodation for athletic shoes. In reaching these conclusions, the Court implicitly
determined that the defendants’ conduct was not “woefully inadequate.” The Court therefore
declines to grant reconsideration on the basis of Petitioner’s allegation that the Court’s analysis
was incomplete or deficient.

C.

The Totality of the Circumstances

Finally, Plaintiff argues that, even if the Court does not believe his individual claims
amount to an Eighth Amendment violation, the Court should conclude that all the instances of
failing to treat him or to continue his prescribed plan of treatment amount to deliberate
indifference under the Eighth Amendment.
“In certain extreme circumstances the totality itself may amount to an eighth amendment
violation, but there still must exist a specific condition on which to base the eighth amendment
claim.” Walker v. Mintzes, 771 F.2d 920, 925 (6th Cir. 1985). “[S]uch conditions, ‘considered
alone or in combination [with other conditions],’ Rhodes [v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 347
(1981)], must amount to a deprivation of ‘life’s necessities,’ id., before a violation of the eighth
amendment can be found.” Id. (first alteration in original, second alteration added).
The defendants’ decisions did not result in the deprivation of life’s necessities.

4

Therefore, Plaintiff cannot establish cumulative error.
III. CONCLUSION
Plaintiff has failed to show that the Court made an obvious, clear, unmistakable,
manifest, or plain error when it summarily dismissed his complaint. And a manifest injustice
will not occur if the Court fails to alter or amend its judgment. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion
for reconsideration (dkt. #10) is DENIED.

s/Paul D. Borman
PAUL D. BORMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: March 17, 2014
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served upon each attorney or
party of record herein by electronic means or first class U.S. mail on March 17, 2014.

s/Deborah Tofil
Case Manager

5