Patmon v. State of Nebraska et al

Filing 23

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER that Plaintiff's claims are dismissed without prejudice. Judgment will be entered by separate order. Ordered by Senior Judge Richard G. Kopf. (Copy mailed to pro se party) (LAC)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
ANTHONY LEE PATMON,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
V.
)
)
CAROL HANNEMAN, TAMMY )
BADER, and WASHINGTON )
COUNTY, NEBRASKA,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)

8:16CV14

MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER

Plaintiff filed his Complaint in this matter on January 14, 2016. (Filing No. 1.)
Upon initial review, the court determined that Plaintiff had failed to state cognizable
claims. (Filing No. 19.) However, the court granted Plaintiff leave to file an amended
complaint. Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint on June 13, 2016. (Filing No. 20.)
For the reasons explained below, Plaintiff’s claims will now be dismissed in their
entirety.
I. SUMMARY OF AMENDED COMPLAINT
Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint names Washington County, Nebraska, Carol
Hanneman (“Hanneman”), and Tammy Bader (“Bader”) as Defendants. (Filing No. 20.)
Plaintiff alleges that Hanneman was employed by Washington County Jail to dispense
medication, and that Bader was a nurse practitioner employed by Washington County
Jail. Hanneman and Bader are sued in both their official and individual capacities.
Liberally construed, Plaintiff maintains that Defendants were deliberately indifferent to
his medical needs in violation of his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights.
Plaintiff claims that on November 11, 2015, he wrote an inmate request to the
Jail’s medical department complaining that he was experiencing discomfort and severe
itching after receiving his insulin shots. At that time, he also inquired about the kind of

insulin that he was being given. On November 12, 2015, Plaintiff received a written
response to his request signed by Hanneman, which indicated that Bader wanted to
reduce Plaintiff’s insulin dosage.
On November 15, 2015, Plaintiff submitted a medical request form stating that
he had a heart condition and that he needed “nitro” pills. Plaintiff also complained that
he was having chest pains. The next day, Plaintiff received a written response from
Hanneman, stating that Bader had been made aware of the situation and that his medical
records had been requested from another facility. Hanneman also informed him that
medical staff would continue to check his blood pressure.
On December 6, 2015, Plaintiff filed a grievance complaining that he had not
received his heart medication and requesting that he be moved to another facility for
medical care. He also asked the medical department whether the bleeding and itching
he had been experiencing after his insulin shots was normal. The following day,
Hanneman advised him that his heart medication was ordered by Bader, but that Plaintiff
could not keep the pills with him and would have to request the pills as needed. She
also advised him that his insulin should not make him itch. Hanneman further informed
Plaintiff that the medical department was still waiting to receive his medical information
from another facility.
On December 7, 2015, Plaintiff filed a medical grievance, claiming his insulin
was not right and that he was experiencing side-effects. On December 8, 2015,
Hanneman told him that the Jail did not have the same kind of insulin that Plaintiff
normally takes.
On December 14, 2015, Plaintiff informed the medical department that he was
experiencing blurred vision. That same day, Hanneman informed Plaintiff that his
vision problems could be caused by changes in his blood pressure and blood sugar.

2

II. DISCUSSION
Plaintiff alleges Defendants violated his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights
because they were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs. To establish a § 1983
claim for deliberate indifference, Plaintiff must demonstrate that he suffered objectively
serious medical needs, and that officials actually knew of but deliberately disregarded
those needs. Johnson v. Hamilton, 452 F.3d 967, 972-73 (8th Cir. 2006). “Deliberate
indifference is equivalent to criminal-law recklessness, which is more blameworthy than
negligence, yet less blameworthy than purposefully causing or knowingly bringing
about a substantial risk of serious harm to the inmate.” Schaub v. VonWald, 638 F.3d
905, 914-15 (8th Cir. 2011) (citation omitted).
Defendants, who are purported county employees, have been sued in their official
and individual capacities. A claim against an individual in his official capacity is, in
reality, a claim against the entity that employs the official, in this case, Washington
County. See Parrish v. Luckie, 963 F.2d 201, 203 n.1 (8th Cir. 1992) (“Suits against
persons in their official capacity are just another method of filing suit against the entity.
A plaintiff seeking damages in an official-capacity suit is seeking a judgment against the
entity.”) (internal citations omitted)). As a municipality, Washington County can only
be liable under § 1983 if a municipal policy or custom caused his injury. See Monell v.
New York Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 694 (1978).
Plaintiff has failed to plausibly suggest that an official Washington County policy
or custom caused the allegedly deficient medical care. Here, Plaintiff alleges that
Washington County was deliberately indifferent to his medical needs by “not having
defendant Tammy Bader, looking after the complaints that the plaintiff was making, as
was her job to do so not defendant Hanneman.” (Filing No. 20 at CM/ECF p. 4.)
Plaintiff further alleges that Washington County Jail “needs to be held accountable for
not having trained medical staff on standby for any serious medical issues.” (Filing No.
20 at CM/ECF p. 5.) These conclusory statements are insufficient to allege a municipal
policy or custom creating liability under § 1983. Therefore, Plaintiff’s claims against
3

Washington County, as well as Plaintiff’s claims against Hanneman and Bader in their
official capacities, will be dismissed.
Plaintiff’s claims against Hanneman in her individual capacity will also be
dismissed. Plaintiff’s allegations do not support the inference that Hanneman refused to
treat him, ignored his complaints, or engaged in any similar conduct that would clearly
evince a wanton disregard for any serious medical need. To the contrary, according to
the dates and allegations contained in the Amended Complaint, Hanneman promptly
responded to each of Plaintiff’s grievances and requests. In short, there is nothing that
suggests that Hanneman acted with a sufficiently culpable state of mind to satisfy the
deliberate indifference standard.
Likewise, Plaintiff’s allegations pertaining to Bader fall short of stating a claim.
Plaintiff’s primary complaint is that Bader did not personally respond to Plaintiff’s
concerns regarding his medications. However, Plaintiff’s allegations do not support the
inference that Bader ignored or disregarded any of Plaintiff’s purported serious medical
needs. Bader was consulted about Plaintiff’s health concerns. In response, she indicated
that she wanted to change Plaintiff’s insulin dosage and ordered heart medication.
Plaintiff’s medical records were also sought from another facility. Moreover, Plaintiff
does not allege that he requested to be seen by Bader, but was denied a physical
examination. There is nothing in the Amended Complaint that suggests Bader knew that
Plaintiff was at serious risk of being harmed and decided not to act.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s claims are dismissed without
prejudice. Judgment will be entered by separate order.
DATED this 22nd day of June, 2016.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Richard G. Kopf
Senior United States District Judge
4