Jones v. Corizon Medical Services et al

Filing 90

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER re: 88 MOTION to Alter Judgment filed by Plaintiff Rodney Douglas Jones, 87 MOTION to Alter Judgment filed by Plaintiff Rodney Douglas Jones. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff Jones's motions (#87, #88) to alter or amend this Court's judgment are DENIED. Signed by District Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr on 12/18/17. (CSG)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION
RODNEY DOUGLAS JONES,
Plaintiff,
v.
CORIZON MEDCAL SERVICES,
et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 1:16-CV-55-SNLJ

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on plaintiff Rodney Jones’s motions (#87, #88) to
alter or amend this Court’s judgment (#83) in favor of defendants Eddie Hartline (“Nurse
Hartline”) and Mina Massey (“Dr. Massey”). The Court denies both motions.
In his first motion (#87), Jones rehashes the arguments he made when opposing
Nurse Hartline and Dr. Massey’s motion for summary judgment. As the Court explained
in granting (#82) Nurse Hartline and Dr. Massey’s motion, there is no evidence in the
record supporting the claim that Jones’s hands presented a substantial risk of harm—
which is required for Jones to show deliberate indifference—when Nurse Hartline first
evaluated Jones. Pietrafeso v. Lawrence Cty., 452 F.3d 978, 984 (8th Cir. 2006). The
same is true for Jones’s claims that Nurse Hartline was deliberately indifferent when
removing Jones’s sutures and that Dr. Massey was deliberately indifferent in discharging
Jones from the infirmary. If Jones’s claims are in fact true, they raise grave concerns
about the Potosi Correctional Center. While sensitive to those potential concerns, the

1

Court’s job is to apply these facts to the correct legal standard. Here, the legal standard—
deliberate indifference—requires Jones to clear a high hurdle. Based on the evidence in
the record, there is no genuine issue of any material fact supporting Jones’s claims that
Nurse Hartline and Dr. Massey were deliberately indifferent.
In his second motion (#88), Jones asks the Court to alter or amend its judgment in
light of his motions to depose (#55), produce (#56), and amend the case management
order (#61). In granting summary judgment in favor of Nurse Hartline and Dr. Massey,
the Court resolved all evidentiary conflicts in Jones’s favor and considered all
information before it. Those motions relate to many of the conflicts the Court resolved in
Jones’s favor. Thus, those motions would not change the Court’s analysis.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff Jones’s motions (#87, #88) to alter or
amend this Court’s judgment are DENIED.

So ordered this 18th day of December 2017.

STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2