Beckermann v. Babich et al
Filing
90
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER re: 74 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Defendant Jason Clements, Defendant John Eppolito, Defendant Julie Fipps, Defendant Jewel Cofield, Defendant Glen Babich, Defendant Lisa Taber, 79 MOTION for Sum mary Judgment filed by Defendant William Strange, Defendant Brad Clark, Defendant Brandy Hickey, Defendant Myrtle Pruitt. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Corizon Defendants' motion for summary judgment (#74) is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Correctional Center Defendants' motion for summary judgment (#79) is GRANTED. Signed by District Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr on 1/2/18. (CSG)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION
JEFFREY A. BECKERMANN,
Plaintiff,
v.
GLEN BABICH, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 1:16-CV-105-SNLJ
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on defendants’ motions for summary judgment
(#74; #79). The defendants are divided into two groups. Dr. Glen Babich, Julie Fipps,
Jewel Cofield, Jason Clements, Cody Stanley, Lisa Taber, and Dr. John Eppolito make up
the “Corizon Defendants.” Brad Clark, Brandy Hickey, Myrtle Pruitt, and William
Strange make up the “Correctional Center Defendants.” Plaintiff Jeffrey Beckermann has
not responded to either motion, and the time for doing so has passed. Both motions are
granted.
I.
Background
The events giving rise to this lawsuit occurred at the Southeast Correctional Center
(“SECC”), where plaintiff was an inmate. On June 2, 2015, plaintiff fractured his right
hand while fighting with another inmate. After the fight, plaintiff was taken to the
segregation unit. Shortly after, defendant Stanley (“Nurse Stanley”) evaluated plaintiff.
Plaintiff complained that his right hand hurt, so Nurse Stanley asked plaintiff to move his
hand. Plaintiff did so easily, and Nurse Stanley observed no swelling, deformity, signs of
1
major physical trauma, or signs of apparent distress. Nurse Stanley did not see anything
that suggested plaintiff had fractured his right hand or fingers or that plaintiff required
further evaluation or work up.
Next, Nurse Stanley explained to plaintiff the two ways to seek medical care while
in segregation. First, plaintiff could submit a Health Services Request (“HSR”). Nurses
collect HSRs each morning and then determine the appropriate care. Second, if plaintiff
had emergent health concerns, he could activate the Incident Command System (“ICS”),
a self-declared medical emergency system that requires correctional officers to contact
health services.
About thirty minutes later, plaintiff was interviewed by defendant Clark (“Officer
Clark”), the lieutenant who was supervising the segregation unit. In this role, Officer
Clark talked with offenders to find out why they were placed in the segregation unit.
Plaintiff claims he told Officer Clark that medical refused to treat him and he was
suffering due to lack of treatment and pain medication. Plaintiff also claims that his hand
was obviously fractured, swollen, and discolored. Officer Clark disputes this and says
plaintiff did not say that he was refused medical treatment.
Later that night, defendants Pruitt and Hickey (“Officer Pruitt” and “Officer
Hickey”) interviewed plaintiff. Plaintiff showed Officer Hickey his right hand and asked
Officer Hickey when a nurse would look at it. Officer Hickey did not think plaintiff’s
hand presented a medical emergency. Officer Hickey explained that plaintiff already had
seen a nurse when he was first taken to segregation. Officer Hickey then explained to
plaintiff the two ways to seek medical care while in segregation. Officer Pruitt does not
2
recall plaintiff showing his hand or saying that he was refused medical treatment, was in
pain, or needed medical care.
A couple hours later, plaintiff saw defendant Taber (“Nurse Taber”). Plaintiff
showed Nurse Taber his hand and asked for medical attention. Nurse Taber gave
plaintiff an HSR and told him to fill it out. Plaintiff claims he filled out the HSR and
submitted it the next day, but there is no documentation to this effect.
Three days later, plaintiff submitted an HSR requesting care for his knee; he did
not submit an HSR for his right hand. Four days after that, plaintiff submitted an HSR
about his right hand. Later that day, defendant Clements (“Nurse Clements”) evaluated
plaintiff. Plaintiff reported pain and swelling in his right hand and explained that he
could not make a fist. He denied numbness and tingling. Plaintiff’s right hand exhibited
no heat, redness, ecchymosis (reddish or bluish discoloration of the skin), deformity, or
discoloration, but Nurse Clements observed swelling and warmth. Nurse Clements
assessed plaintiff with a possible fracture or dislocation, administered ibuprofen,
immobilized and splinted plaintiff’s hand, applied ice, and referred plaintiff to a higherlevel provider. Nurse Clements also noted that he would follow up with plaintiff’s care
to ensure that a doctor had ordered an x-ray. At no point did plaintiff activate the ICS.
Two days later, plaintiff received an x-ray that showed a fracture. Defendant
Eppolito (“Dr. Eppolito”) requested an orthopedic referral and ordered Tylenol #3, a
narcotic pain medication. Defendant Babich (“Dr. Babich”) approved the consult
request, and plaintiff met with an orthopedic specialist twelve days later. Plaintiff claims
that, because of the long delay in medical treatment, the orthopedic specialist said he
3
would require extensive reconstructive surgery that would involve re-fracturing his hand.
This is not reflected in any of the orthopedic specialist’s medical records. The orthopedic
specialist requested approval for surgery, Dr. Babich approved the request, and the
specialist operated about a month later. Of course, if the orthopedic specialist thought the
surgery were urgent, she could have requested an earlier date. Nothing in plaintiff’s
medical records shows that a delay in treatment affected his surgery or recovery.
After plaintiff’s first appointment with the orthopedic specialist, but before
surgery, plaintiff was transferred to Eastern Reception, Diagnostic and Correctional
Center. Defendant Strange (“Deputy Warden Strange”) did not request plaintiff’s
transfer, but he did approve it. Deputy Warden Strange claims that plaintiff was
transferred from SECC to open up beds for safety and security reasons.
Plaintiff then filed suit based on the medical treatment (or alleged lack thereof) he
received for his fractured hand. He claims both groups of defendants were deliberately
indifferent to his serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment.1
II.
Legal Standard
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, a district court may grant a motion
for summary judgment if all of the information before the court demonstrates that “there
1
Plaintiff sued the Correctional Center Defendants in their official and individual capacities.
This Court dismissed plaintiff’s official-capacity claims. (#45 at 7, 9). Plaintiff also claimed
that Officers Clark, Pruitt, and Hickey violated a state statute in failing to notify the department
director that plaintiff was suffering neglect and abuse. This Court dismissed those claims. (#45
at 7). Finally, this Court dismissed plaintiff’s deliberate-indifference claim against Deputy
Warden Strange. (# 45 at 9). These claims are currently before the Court: (1) deliberateindifference claims against the Corizon Defendants, (2) individual capacity deliberateindifference claims against the Correctional Center Defendants, except Deputy Warden Strange,
and (3) an individual capacity retaliation claim against Deputy Warden Strange.
4
is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a
judgment as a matter of law.” Poller v. Columbia Broad. Sys., Inc., 368 U.S. 464, 467
(1962). The burden is on the moving party. City of Mt. Pleasant v. Assoc. Elec. Co-op.,
Inc., 838 F.2d 268, 273 (8th Cir. 1988). After the moving party discharges this burden,
the nonmoving party must do more than show that there is some doubt as to the facts.
Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986). Instead,
the nonmoving party bears the burden of setting forth specific facts showing that there is
sufficient evidence in its favor to allow a jury to return a verdict for it. Anderson v.
Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249 (1986); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317,
324 (1986).
In ruling on a motion for summary judgment, the Court must review the facts in
the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion and must give that party the
benefit of any inferences that logically can be drawn from those facts. N. States Power
Co. v. Fed. Transit Admin., 358 F.3d 1050, 1053 (8th Cir. 2004). The Court is required
to resolve all conflicts of evidence in favor of the nonmoving party. Robert Johnson
Grain Co. v. Chem. Interchange Co., 541 F.2d 207, 210 (8th Cir. 1976). Because
plaintiff did not oppose the motions, the matters in the Corizon Defendants’ and the
Correctional Center Defendants’ statements of uncontroverted facts (#76; #81) are
deemed admitted for the purposes of this motion. E. D. Mo. L. R. 7-4.01(E).
III.
Discussion
5
A.
The Corizon Defendants2
Plaintiff has an Eighth Amendment right not to have known, objectively serious
medical needs disregarded by prison officials. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104–06
(1976). “For a violation, [plaintiff] must show ‘(1) that [he] suffered [from] objectively
serious medical needs and (2) that the prison officials actually knew of but deliberately
disregarded those needs.’” Fourte v. Faulkner Cty., 746 F.3d 384, 387 (8th Cir. 2014)
(second and third alterations in original) (quoting Jolly v. Knudsen, 205 F.3d 1094, 1096
(8th Cir. 2000)). The first element is objective, the second subjective. Jolly, 205 F.3d at
1096.
“A serious medical need is one that has been diagnosed by a physician as requiring
treatment, or one that is so obvious that even a layperson would easily recognize the
necessity for a doctor’s attention.” Fourte, 746 F.3d at 388 (quoting Coleman v. Rahija,
114 F.3d 778, 784 (8th Cir. 1997)). “Deliberate indifference may include intentionally
denying or delaying access to medical care, or intentionally interfering with treatment or
medication that has been prescribed.” Pietrafeso v. Lawrence Cty., 452 F.3d 978, 983
(8th Cir. 2006) (quoting Vaughan v. Lacey, 49 F.3d 1344, 1346 (8th Cir. 1995)).
“Deliberate indifference is ‘more than negligence, more even than gross negligence, and
mere disagreement with treatment decisions does not rise to the level of a constitutional
2
The Corizon Defendants argue that they are entitled to summary judgment because plaintiff
failed to exhaust his administrative remedies before filing this suit. Plaintiff filed three
grievances related to the treatment of his hand. It seems that plaintiff did, in fact, fail to exhaust
his administrative remedies before filing this suit for two of these. But there is some dispute as
to whether he exhausted his administrative remedies for the third grievance, where he
complained that he was denied medical treatment for his broken hand. Because the Corizon
Defendants are entitled to summary judgment on the merits, the Court need not address this
argument.
6
violation.’” Fourte, 746 F.3d at 387 (quoting Jolly, 205 F.3d at 1096). “A prison official
is deliberately indifferent to a prisoner’s serious medical needs only if he is ‘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.’” Pietrafeso, 452 F.3d at 984 (emphasis
added) (quoting Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994)).
The Court will address each defendant separately.
1.
Nurse Stanley
As mentioned above, Nurse Stanley evaluated plaintiff after he was taken to
segregation. Nurse Stanley asked plaintiff to move his hand. Plaintiff did so easily, and
Nurse Stanley observed no swelling, deformity, signs of major physical trauma, or signs
of apparent distress. Nurse Stanley did not see anything that suggested plaintiff had
fractured his right hand or fingers or that plaintiff required further evaluation or work up.
Although plaintiff disagrees with Nurse Stanley’s assessment, that does not amount to an
Eighth Amendment violation. Fourte, 746 F.3d at 387. Even if Nurse Stanley were
negligent and underestimated the severity of plaintiff’s injury, this still does not rise to
the level of deliberate indifference. Estelle, 429 U.S. at 104. Also, there is no verified
medical evidence that any alleged delay in treatment harmed plaintiff. Crowley v.
Hedgepeth, 109 F.3d 500, 502 (8th Cir. 1997). Because there is no evidence in the record
that Nurse Stanley was deliberately indifferent, there is no genuine issue of any material
fact, and Nurse Stanley is entitled to summary judgment.
2.
Nurse Taber
7
Plaintiff saw Nurse Taber the night he was transferred to segregation. When
plaintiff showed Nurse Taber his hand and asked for medical attention, Nurse Taber gave
him an HSR and told him to fill it out. If plaintiff tried stopping Nurse Taber when she
was administering inmate medication, per SECC policy, she could not stop to evaluate
plaintiff. Plaintiff could have submitted an HSR, and he could have activated the ICS.
When plaintiff finally did submit an HSR for his hand—seven days after he was
transferred to segregation—he was evaluated. Because there is no evidence in the record
that Nurse Taber was deliberately indifferent, there is no genuine issue of any material
fact, and Nurse Taber is entitled to summary judgment.
3.
Nurse Clements
When plaintiff finally submitted an HSR for his hand, Nurse Clements evaluated
him. He assessed plaintiff with a possible fracture or dislocation, gave plaintiff
ibuprofen, immobilized and splinted plaintiff’s hand, applied ice, and referred plaintiff to
a higher-level provider. Nurse Clements also noted that he would follow up with
plaintiff’s care to ensure that a doctor had ordered an x-ray. Plaintiff received an x-ray
two days later. Nothing in the record suggests that Nurse Clements was deliberately
indifferent. Thus, there is no genuine issue of any material fact, and Nurse Clements is
entitled to summary judgment.
4.
Dr. Eppolito
After plaintiff received an x-ray that showed a fracture, Dr. Eppolito requested an
orthopedic referral and ordered Tylenol #3, a narcotic pain medication. He also renewed
8
plaintiff’s Tylenol #3 prescription while plaintiff was waiting for his appointment with
the orthopedist specialist. None of this was deliberately indifferent.
After his surgery, plaintiff filed a grievance with SECC, claiming that he had been
denied medical treatment for his broken hand. Dr. Eppolito reviewed plaintiff’s medical
records, which showed that plaintiff had been provided extensive treatment for his
complaints, according to the independent medical judgment of his qualified medical
providers. Although plaintiff might disagree with Dr. Eppolito’s conclusion, that does
not rise to the level of deliberate indifference. See Fourte, 746 F.3d at 387. Because
there is no evidence in the record that Dr. Eppolito was deliberately indifferent, there is
no genuine issue of any material fact, and Dr. Eppolito is entitled to summary judgment.
5.
Dr. Babich
Dr. Babich approved the orthopedic specialist’s request to operate on plaintiff. He
also responded to plaintiff’s grievance appeal and concluded that plaintiff had been
provided extensive medical treatment. Because there is no evidence in the record that Dr.
Babich was deliberately indifferent, there is no genuine issue of any material fact, and Dr.
Babich is entitled to summary judgment.
6.
Fipps and Cofield
Fipps assisted Dr. Eppolito with his response to plaintiff’s grievance, and Cofield
assisted Dr. Babich with his response to plaintiff’s grievance appeal. In doing so, nothing
in the record suggests that Fipps or Cofield was deliberately indifferent. Instead, the
medical records show that plaintiff received extensive treatment. Fipps and Cofield are
entitled to summary judgment.
9
B.
Correctional Center Defendants
1.
Officers Clark, Pruitt, and Hickey
Plaintiff claims that Officers Clark, Pruitt, and Hickey were deliberately
indifferent to his serious medical needs. Officer Clark interviewed plaintiff after he was
transferred to segregation. Officer Clark claims that plaintiff never mentioned he was
refused medical treatment. Later, Officer Hickey looked at plaintiff’s hand and did not
think it presented a medical emergency. Officer Hickey explained that plaintiff had seen
a nurse when plaintiff was first taken to segregation and explained to plaintiff the two
ways to seek medical care while in segregation. Officer Pruitt does not recall plaintiff
showing his hand or saying that he was refused medical treatment, was in pain, or needed
medical care. Because there is no evidence in the record that Officers Clark, Pruitt, and
Hickey were deliberately indifferent, there is no genuine issue of any material fact, and
they are entitled to summary judgment.3
2.
Deputy Warden Strange
Plaintiff claims that Deputy Warden Strange retaliated against him and transferred
him to a different facility to suppress his use of the grievance process. To establish a
claim for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the
Plaintiff must “show (1) he engaged in a protected activity, (2) the government official
took adverse action against him that would chill a person of ordinary firmness from
continuing in the activity, and (3) the adverse action was motivated at least in part by the
3
Because the Officers did not violate plaintiff’s constitutional right, they also are entitled to
qualified immunity. See Krout v. Goemmer, 583 F.3d 557, 564 (8th Cir. 2009).
10
exercise of the protected activity.” Spencer v. Jackson Cnty, 738 F.3d 907, 911 (8th Cir.
2013) (quoting Revels v. Vincenz, 382 F.3d 870, 876 (8th Cir. 2004)). This claim fails for
two reasons.
First, plaintiff never filed a grievance related to this claim. Thus, plaintiff failed to
exhaust his administrative remedies before filing suit in federal court. See 42 U.S.C. §
1997e(a); Johnson v. Jones, 340 F.3d 624, 627 (8th Cir. 2003). Second, nothing in the
record suggests that Deputy Warden Strange approved plaintiff’s transfer because
plaintiff used the grievance process. Instead, the Functional Unit Manager requested
Plaintiff’s transfer “to open up beds for security breach by other offenders.” Thus,
Deputy Warden Strange is entitled to summary judgment.4
IV.
Conclusion
Summary judgment will be granted in favor of all defendants.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Corizon Defendants’ motion for summary
judgment (#74) is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Correctional Center Defendants’ motion
for summary judgment (#79) is GRANTED.
So ordered this 2nd day of January 2018.
STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
4
Because Deputy Warden Strange did not violate plaintiff’s constitutional right, he also is
entitled to qualified immunity. See Krout, 583 F.3d at 564.
11
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?