Matje v. Zestos et al
Filing
26
ORDER (1) Sustaining in Part and Overruling in Part Plaintiff's 25 Objections to the 24 Report and Recommendation Dated February 28, 2015, and (2) Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendants' 20 MOTION to Dismiss. Signed by District Judge Matthew F. Leitman. (Monda, H)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
THOMAS L. MATJE,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 13-14791
Hon. Matthew F. Leitman
v.
ZETOS, Medical Director, et al.,
Defendants.
__________________________________________________________________/
ORDER (1) SUSTAINING IN PART AND OVERRULING IN PART
PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS TO THE REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION DATED FEBRUARY 28, 2015, AND
(2) GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
Plaintiff Thomas L. Matje, an inmate in the custody of the Federal Bureau of
Prisons, has filed a pro se civil action pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed.
Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), alleging deliberate indifference to his
medical needs, in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The Defendants include the
medical director at the facility in which Plaintiff is housed and a physician at that
facility who evaluated and treated Plaintiff. Plaintiff alleges that he suffers severe
and debilitating pain as a result of certain medical conditions and prior surgeries.
Plaintiff claims that before his incarceration, his personal physician
prescribed Oxycodone for his pain. He says that the Defendants refuse to prescribe
and provide that essential medication. In fact, Plaintiff alleges in his Complaint
1
that Defendants have completely failed to prescribe any medication for his pain.
(See Br. In Supp. of Pl.’s Compl., ECF #1 at Pg. ID 10-11: “Defendants have
refused to prescribe even a substitute medication … and have shown “a total
disregard to the pain and suffering of Plaintiff causing Plaintiff to endure
unnecessary pain and suffering.”) Plaintiff acknowledges that Defendants have
prescribed him Gabapentin, but he insists that Gabapentin “is a nerve medication
and not a pain medication.” (Obj. to R&R, ECF #25 at Pg. ID 117.) In Plaintiff’s
words, he “is not being given anything for his pain.” (Obj. to R&R, ECF #25 at Pg.
ID 116.) Finally, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ conduct fails to satisfy the
prevailing community standards for the treatment of pain.
When the Court construes Plaintiff’s claims liberally, as it must, the Court
discerns three separate aspects to the claims:
1.
Defendants have violated Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment rights by
failing and refusing to prescribe Oxycodone, a highly-effective pain
control drug that was prescribed by Plaintiff’s private physician prior
to his incarceration;
2.
Defendants have violated Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment rights by
failing to adhere to accepted community medical treatment standards;
and
3.
Defendants have violated Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment rights by
completely failing to provide any treatment whatsoever for Plaintiff’s
severe and debilitating pain, even though they well know that Plaintiff
is suffering and has a material need for pain relieving medications.
2
Defendants William Malatinsky, M.D., and James Zestos have moved to
dismiss the Amended Complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure.
(See the “Motion,” ECF #20.)
The Magistrate Judge
recommends that the motion be granted in its entirety. (See the “Report and
Recommendation,” ECF #24.) Plaintiff has timely objected to the Report and
Recommendation.
The Report and Recommendation identified the correct legal standard
governing Plaintiff’s claims:
Prisoners have a constitutional right to medical care under
the Eighth Amendment,. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97,
103; 97 S.Ct. 285, 50 L.Ed.2d 251 (1976). Prison
officials may not act with deliberate indifference to the
medical needs of their prisoners. Id. at 104. An Eighth
Amendment claim has two components, one objective
and the other subjective. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S.
825, 834, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994);
Comstock v. McCrary, 273 F.3d 693, 702 (6th Cir. 2001).
Under the objective component, “the plaintiff must allege
that the medical need at issue is ‘sufficiently serious.’”
Id. Under the subjective component, “the plaintiff must
allege facts which, if true, would show that the official
being sued subjectively perceived facts from which to
infer substantial risk to the prisoner, that he did in fact
draw the inference, and that he then disregarded that
risk.” Id.
(R&R at 3, Pg. ID 111.)
The Report and Recommendation also properly concluded that the first two
aspects of Plaintiff’s claim are not viable under this standard. As the Magistrate
3
Judge correctly noted, federal courts have repeatedly held that the Eighth
Amendment does not guarantee a prisoner the right to be treated with any
particular medication (see cases cited below at pp. 5-6), and thus Plaintiff fails to
state a plausible claim when he alleges that Defendants refused to prescribe and/or
provide Oxycodone. Likewise, it is well-established that a physician’s allegedly
negligent failure to satisfy prevailing medical standards – i.e., a claim the she
effectively committed medical malpractice – does not rise to the level of an Eighth
Amendment violation. See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976); Hill v.
Curcione, 657 F.3d 116, 123 (2d Cir. 2011). Thus, the Court overrules Plaintiff’s
objections to those portions of the Report and Recommendation in which the
Magistrate Judge suggests dismissing the first two aspects of Plaintiff’s claim.
However, the Court sustains Plaintiff’s objection to that portion of the
Report and Recommendation in which the Magistrate Judge suggests dismissing
the third component of Plaintiff’s claim. In that component, Plaintiff alleges that
the Defendants have intentionally failed to provide any treatment for his severe
pain even though they are well aware of the pain. Plaintiff acknowledges that the
Defendants have prescribed and provided Gabapentin, but he insists that
Gabapentin is a nerve medication, not a pain relief medication. In the context of
deciding the pending motion under Rule 12(b)(6), the Court must accept as true
4
Plaintiff’s allegation that Defendants have failed to prescribe any substitute pain
medication to replace his previously-prescribed Oxycodone.
Plaintiff’s claim that Defendants are knowingly and intentionally failing to
provide any treatment whatsoever for his severe pain is sufficient to state a viable
Eighth Amendment claim. Indeed, the Sixth Circuit has held that a prisoner states
a viable Eighth Amendment claim by alleging that a defendant provided “no
treatment at all” for a particular condition. See Alspaugh v. McConnell, 643 F.3d
162, 169 (6th Cir. 2011). The Sixth Circuit has also “agree[d] with the Ninth
Circuit that a prisoner who is needlessly allowed to suffer pain when relief is
readily available does have a cause of action against those whose deliberate
indifference is the cause of his suffering.” Westlake v. Lucas, 537 F.2d 857, 860
(6th Cir. 1976). Plaintiff’s claim that he has received no pain medication stands in
sharp contrast to other cases in which federal courts have dismissed Eighth
Amendment claims based upon the alleged failure to provide a specific type of
pain medication. See, e.g., Hill, 657 F.3d at 123 (2d Cir. 2011) (affirming dismissal
of deliberate indifference claim based upon failure to prescribe requested pain
medication where plaintiff had been prescribed Motrin); Thomas v. Coble, 55 Fed.
App’x 748 (6th Cir. 2003) (affirming dismissal of deliberate indifference claim
based upon failure to prescribe requested pain medication where plaintiff had been
prescribed pain medications, just not the ones he requested); Baker v. Noronha,
5
No. 12-10642, 2013 WL 639336 (E.D Mich. Jan. 8, 2013) (report and
recommendation), adopted by 2013 WL 639153 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 21, 2013).
It seems that Plaintiff may well have a difficult time prevailing on his claim
that Defendants have provided no treatment and that Defendants may, upon a
proper showing, ultimately be entitled to summary judgment on this claim. But on
the current state of the pleadings, the claim is viable.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1.
Plaintiff’s objections to the portions of the Report and
Recommendation suggesting that the Court dismiss the first two
aspects of Plaintiff’s claim – failure to prescribe/provide Oxycodone
and failure to satisfy community standards – are OVERRULED and
those two aspects of Plaintiff’s claims are DISMISSED WITH
PREJUDICE.
2.
Plaintiff’s objection to the Report and Recommendation is
SUSTAINED to the extent that the Report and Recommendation
suggests that the Court dismiss Plaintiff’s claim that Defendants are
knowingly and intentionally failed to provide any pain medication to
treat his severe pain. To the extent Defendants’ motion seeks
dismissal of this aspect of Plaintiff’s claim, it is DENIED.
3.
The sole claim remaining in this action is Plaintiff’s claim that
Defendants violated his Eighth Amendment rights by knowingly,
intentionally, and entirely withholding any and all pain medications to
treat his severe pain.
s/Matthew F. Leitman
MATTHEW F. LEITMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: March 25, 2015
6
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties
and/or counsel of record on March 25, 2015, by electronic means and/or ordinary
mail.
s/Holly A. Monda
Case Manager
(313) 234-5113
7
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?