JOHNSON v. HASTINGS et al
Filing
55
OPINION. Signed by Judge William J. Martini on 1/30/18. (gh, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
RANDY JOHNSON,
Civ. No. 2:13-6974
Plaintiff,
v.
OPINION
BEVERLY HASTINGS and GRACE
AMISTICO,
Defendants.1
WILLIAM J. MARTINI, U.S.D.J.:
This is a pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against East Jersey State Prison (“EJSP”)
administrative and medical officials. Plaintiff alleges Beverly Hastings (“Hastings”) and
Grace Amistico (“Amistico”) acted with deliberate indifference to his serious medical
needs, in violation of his Eighth Amendment rights. The matter comes before the Court
on Amistico’s unopposed motions to seal an exhibit and for summary judgment. Hastings
does not join in the motions and since she received service of process in 2014, no steps or
proceedings appear to have occurred as to her. There was no oral argument. FED. R. CIV.
P. 78(b). For the reasons below, the motions are GRANTED. As to Amistico, Plaintiff’s
Complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
I.
BACKGROUND
The following facts are drawn from Plaintiff’s Complaint and Amistico’s Statement
of Undisputed Material Facts (“SMF”) and supporting exhibits. 2 And in light of
reviewing Plaintiff’s electronic medical records as to the alleged inadequate care
provided, the Court will highlight the encounters with prison medical officials relevant to
Plaintiff’s condition and need not go into detail on each and every visit. See SMF ¶¶ 4–
50, ECF No. 47-2.
A state prisoner incarcerated for over 30 years, Plaintiff has a history of hepatitis C
dating back to 2004 when he first received treatment. Id. ¶ 4. After suffering adverse side
effects to his eye, the treatment was discontinued. Id. Eight years later during a chronic
1
The Clerk of the Court is directed to amend the caption as above.
As required under this District’s Local Civil Rule 56.1(a), Plaintiff filed no opposition papers nor a responsive
statement of material facts. Even so, the Third Circuit has “traditionally given pro se litigants greater leeway where
they have not followed the technical rules of pleading and procedure.” Tabron v. Grace, 6 F.3d 147, 153 n.2 (3d Cir.
1993) (citations omitted). Despite filing no statement of undisputed material facts, the Court will draw the relevant
facts underling the claims from available sources such as the Complaint, deposition testimony, the moving litigant’s
Local Civil Rule 56.1 statement of undisputed material facts and supporting exhibits.” Athill v. Speziale, No. 06–
4941 (SDW), 2009 WL 1874194, at *2 (D.N.J. June 30, 2009).
2
1
care visit, Plaintiff asked about the possibility to start a new hepatitis C treatment
regimen. Id. ¶ 5. About a year later, after receiving approval from optometry and mental
health to restart treatment, Amistico became involved in Plaintiff’s medical care. Id. ¶ 23.
In a March 2013 encounter, Amistico noted in Plaintiff’s chart his current medications
would contraindicate the hepatitis C treatment regimen, so no treatment was ordered. Id.
She informed the Medical Site Director of this development. Id. In a follow-up
appointment the next day, a doctor confirmed Amistico’s observation to withhold
treatment and suggested Plaintiff discontinue certain medications. Id. ¶ 24. Acting on the
doctor’s recommendation, Amistico scheduled Plaintiff for repeat lab work and a followup appointment to discuss treatment options. Id. ¶ 25.
In April 2013, Amistico discussed and Plaintiff agreed to stop taking certain
medications so Plaintiff could receive the hepatitis C treatment. Id. ¶ 28. Amistico again
informed the Medical Site Director on Plaintiff’s treatment. Id. A week later, Amistico
met with Plaintiff again and placed him on the hepatitis C treatment waiting list. Id. ¶ 29.
Four weeks later, Plaintiff filed an inmate grievance report over the delay in treatment
because he was told Trenton lacked funds to purchase the medications and a doctor had
already approved his treatment plan in February 2012. See Raymond-Flood Cert. ¶ 4, Ex.
C., Inmate Remedy System Form, ECF No. 47-1. Shortly after filing the grievance, EJSP
officials denied it. Id.
In September 2013, a doctor reviewed Plaintiff’s chart and suggested a reconsultation
for advice on the ophthalmologic reaction that ended a previous hepatitis C treatment.
SMF ¶ 32. In the months that followed, Plaintiff had multiple optometry exams and
consultations. Some delays in between care were attributable to Plaintiff’s refusal to
attend appointments for non-medical reasons. Id. ¶¶ 33–34, 37–38. While others were to
monitor retinal holes found in his eye and to discuss previous eye lid swelling. Id. ¶¶ 34,
36, 40–42. During this time, Plaintiff expressed interest in retreatment. Id. ¶ 44. In a July
2014 consult, the provider found a retinal hole with mild fluid elevation and hepatitis
which required a follow-up visit. Id. ¶ 45.
In September 2014, Plaintiff received administrative approval for hepatitis C
treatment. Id. ¶ 47. Plaintiff completed the treatment regimen and lab results showed no
traces of hepatitis C. Id. ¶¶ 48–49. Although cleared of hepatitis C, Plaintiff receives
continued monitoring every six to eight months. Id. ¶ 50.
Plaintiff filed this pro se Section 1983 Complaint, alleging Amistico denied him
adequate medical care and placed him on a long waiting list to receive needed medical
treatment. For her alleged incompetence, Plaintiff believes he has liver cancer. See
Raymond-Flood Cert. ¶ 4, Ex. B, Johnson Dep. 35:9–24. Amistico now moves for
summary judgment on the ground that she was not deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff’s
medical needs and that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies through
EJSP’s grievance procedures. In support of the summary judgment motion, Amistico
submitted relevant excerpts of Plaintiff’s electronic medical record, whose contents she
seeks to seal and protect from public disclosure because the exhibit contains Plaintiff’s
2
protected health information. See Raymond-Flood Mot. to Seal Decl. ¶¶ 5–6, Ex. A, ECF
No. 45-1; Amistico’s Mot. to Seal Br. 4–5, ECF No. 45-2.
II.
LEGAL STANDARD
Summary judgment is appropriate if “there is no genuine dispute as to any material
fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” FED. R. CIV. P. 56(a). A
genuine issue of material facts exists “if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could
return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242,
248 (1986). In its review, the Court considers all evidence and inferences drawn
therefrom in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Andreoli v. Gates, 482
F.3d 641, 647 (3d Cir. 2007). For unopposed summary judgment motions, the Court must
decide whether the moving party’s “undisputed facts warrant[ ] judgment as a matter of
law.” Miller v. Ashcroft, 76 F. App’x 457, 462 (3d Cir. 2003) (citations omitted); FED. R.
CIV. P. 56(e)(3).
III.
DISCUSSION
The Court will first address the motion to seal Plaintiff’s medical records and then
discuss the inadequate medical care claim.
A. Motion to Seal Plaintiff’s Medical Records
Local Civil Rule 5.3 governs motions to seal or otherwise restrict public access to
documents filed with the Court. To overcome the public’s right of access, a moving party
must show “[g]ood cause . . . that disclosure will work a clearly defined and serious
injury to the party seeking closure.” Pansy v. Borough of Stroudsburg, 23 F.3d 772, 786
(3d Cir. 1994) (quotation marks and citation omitted); L. CIV. R. 5.3(c)(3)(a)–(e).
The Court finds good cause to seal the single exhibit containing relevant portions of
Plaintiff’s medical history, which Amistico included in support of the summary judgment
motion. Confidentiality concerns as to Plaintiff’s medical history align with Third Circuit
case law supporting nondisclosure of a prisoner’s medical information filed in litigation.
See Doe v. Delie, 257 F.3d 309, 315, 317 (3d Cir. 2001) (citation omitted). And no less
restrictive alternative exists here since all other portions of the summary judgment motion
will be publically available and the Court knows of no party or non-party objecting to the
sealing request. Thus, Plaintiff’s right to privacy in his medical records outweighs the
public right to access documents containing “intimate facts of a personal nature.” United
States v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 638 F.2d 570, 577 (3d Cir. 1980).
B. Plaintiff’s Constitutional Deliberate Indifference Claim
To sustain an Eighth Amendment inadequate medical care claim, an inmate must
show how prison officials acted with “deliberate indifference to serious medical needs.”
Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976). That means a plaintiff must set forth how the
defendant was subjectively aware of an unmet serious medical need and then failed to
reasonably respond. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994). Though “mere
disagreement as to the proper medical treatment” and “mere allegations of malpractice do
not raise issues of constitutional import.” Monmouth Cty. Corr. Inst. Inmates v. Lanzaro,
834 F.2d 326, 346 (3d Cir. 1987) (citations omitted).
3
Although the Court concludes hepatitis C is a serious medical need requiring
treatment, Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate how a reasonable jury could find Amistico
acted with deliberate indifference to such needs. To the extent Plaintiff avers Amistico’s
actions were inadequate in that she placed him on a long waitlist to receive treatment, that
allegation fails to rise to “such indifference that can offend ‘evolving standards of
decency.’” Estelle, 429 U.S. at 106 (footnote omitted). Amistico exercised professional
judgment when she placed Plaintiff on the waitlist even though he had yet to receive
clearance from ophthalmology. It was during this time on the waitlist when Plaintiff met
with medical professionals to discuss previous complications with the hepatitis C
treatment and underwent exams to monitor retinal holes and fluid build-up in his eye.
Further, Plaintiff exacerbated the treatment delay upon his refusal to attend previously
scheduled medical appointments for non-medical reasons.
In all, the record is bereft of evidence showing how Amistico refused, delayed, or
prevented Plaintiff from receiving adequate medical care. During each sick call or
chronic care visit, the record shows Amistico treated Plaintiff. Also, nothing from the
record demonstrates how Amistico had an ability to control or prioritize the hepatitis C
treatment waitlist. Therefore, because Plaintiff has failed to “point to some evidence
beyond h[is] raw claim that [Amistico] was deliberately indifferent,” Amistico is entitled
to judgment as a matter of law. Singletary v. Penn. Dep’t of Corr., 266 F.3d 186, 192 n.2
(3d Cir. 2001) (citing Celotex v. Catrett Corp., 477 U.S. 317, 325 (1986)). Because the
Court finds no violation of Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment right to adequate medical care,
it need not consider Amistico’s remaining administrative exhaustion argument.
IV.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, Amistico’s motions to seal and for summary judgment are GRANTED.
As to Amistico, Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. An
appropriate order follows.
/s/ William J. Martini
WILLIAM J. MARTINI, U.S.D.J.
Date: January 30, 2018
4
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?