Tomlin v. Epps et al
Filing
7
MEMORANDUM OPINION re 6 Judgment. Signed by Glen H. Davidson on 12/6/12. (jtm)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
GREENVILLE DIVISION
DWAYNE TOMLIN
PLAINTIFF
v.
No. 4: 12CV72-D-A
CHRISTOPHER EPPS, ET AL.
DEFENDANTS
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter comes before the court on the pro se prisoner complaint of Dwayne Tomlin,
who challenges the conditions of his confinement under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. For the purposes of
the Prison Litigation Reform Act, the court notes that the plaintiff was incarcerated when he filed
this suit. Tomlin alleges that the defendants have failed to provide him with constitutionally
adequate medical care. For the reasons set forth below, the instant case be dismissed for failure
to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
Factual Allegations
Dwayne Tomlin was injured in a car accident in 1997. He suffered a broken back and
other injuries and, though he underwent surgery after the accident, he lost the use of his legs and
developed problems with his renal system. He has become incontinent and suffers from pain in
his back and groin, and these problems are getting worse. He informed Mississippi Department
of Corrections officials of his injuries and other medical problems as he went through medical
screening upon entry into the penal system. The defendants, after examining and treating
Tomlin, decided to discontinue some of his treatments. This change in treatment occurred at
about the same time that Tomlin's condition began to decline. Tomlin asked for approval for
different treatment in letters, in person, and through sick call requests, but he has not received
such approval. Though he has been treated for his conditions during his incarceration, he
disagrees with the course of treatment. In particular, he believes that the defendants should
conduct various diagnostic tests to determine more effective treatment, reissue a back brace and
orthopedic shoes, and provide medication for his kidney trouble. He believes his examinations
have been cursory, at best. He is afraid that failure to conduct more extensive testing - and
provide more effective treatment
will lead to complete renal failure, treatment with dialysis,
and eventually organ replacement.
Denial of Medical Treatment
In order to prevail on an Eighth Amendment claim for denial of medical care, a plaintiff
must allege facts which demonstrate "deliberate indifference to the serious medical needs of
prisoners [which] constitutes 'unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain' proscribed by the
Eighth Amendment ... whether the indifference is manifested by prison doctors or prison guards
in intentionally denying or delaying access to medical care ...." Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97,
104-105,50 L. Ed. 2d 251, 260 (1976); Mayweather v. Foti, 958 F.2d 91,91 (5 th Cir. 1992). The
test for establishing deliberate indifference is one of "subjective recklessness as used in the
criminal law." Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994). Under this standard, a state actor
may not be held liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless plaintiff alleges facts which, if true, would
establish that the official "knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or safety;
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 838. Only in
exceptional circumstances may knowledge of substantial risk of serious harm be inferred by a
court from the obviousness of the substantial risk. Id. Negligent conduct by prison officials does
not rise to the level of a constitutional violation. Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 106 S.Ct.
662 (1986), Davidson v. Cannon, 474 U.S. 344, 106 S.Ct. 668 (1986). In cases such as the one at
bar, arising from delayed medical attention rather than a clear denial of medical attention, a
plaintiff must demonstrate that he suffered substantial harm resulting from the delay in order to
state a claim for a civil rights violation. Mendoza v. Lynaugh, 989 F.2d 191, 193 (5 th Cir. 1993);
Campbell v. McMillin, 83 F. Supp. 2d 761 (S.D. Miss. 2000). A prisoner's mere disagreement
with medical treatment provided by prison officials does not state a claim against the prison for
violation of the Eighth Amendment by deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs.
Gibbs v. Grimmette, 254 F.3d 545 (5 th Cir.200l), Norton v. Dimazana, 122 F.3d 286, 292 (5 th
Cir. 1997).
In the present case, Tomlin concedes that he has been examined and treated for his
medical conditions. Though he believes that the examinations have been cursory and the
treatment inadequate, his belief amounts only to his disagreement with the course of treatment he
has been provided. As discussed above, that is not enough to state a claim of denial ofmedical
treatment, and this case will be dismissed for failure to state a constitutional claim. A final
judgment consistent with this memorandum opinion shall issue today.
SO ORDERED, this the 6 th day of December, 2012.
lsi Glen H. Davidson
SENIOR JUDGE
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?