Al-Zerjawi v. Kline et al
Memorandum of Opinion and Order for the reasons set forth herein the Court denies Plaintiff's 6 Motion to Amend Judgment. Judge Benita Y. Pearson on 8/18/2017. (E,CK)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
JAMES KLINE, et al.,
CASE NO. 4:16CV2743
JUDGE BENITA Y. PEARSON
MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND
ORDER [Resolving ECF No. 6]
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Safaa Al-Zerjawi’s Motion to Alter or Amend
Judgment. ECF No. 6. Defendant did not reply, and the time to do so has passed. For the
following reasons, the Court denies Plaintiff’s Motion.
Plaintiff brought suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that various doctors and
prison officials were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs in violation of the Eighth
Amendment. ECF No. 1. Plaintiff twisted his lower back while lifting a laundry bag. Id. at
PageID #: 5. He contends that although he was in pain, officers refused to call for medical
assistance, a nurse refused to see him, and medical staff did not provide him with appropriate
care. Id. at PageID #: 5–8. The Court dismissed Plaintiff’s Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§
1915(e) and 1915A, finding that Plaintiff had not shown that the medical staff was deliberately
indifferent to his needs. ECF No. 4. The Court noted that Plaintiff had been seen in Medical for
complaints about his leg and back pain on a number of occasions, and steps were taken to
diagnose and treat his condition. Id. at PageID #: 69.
Plaintiff moves to alter or amend judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). ECF No. 6.
Plaintiff contends that the Court did not address “pertinent facts related to Plaintiff’s injury to his
back,” including: that the medical staff did “nothing” to address Plaintiffs’ condition; that
Plaintiff lost complete function of a portion of his lower right leg because the injury had
progressed without proper intervention; and that Plaintiff has suffered “permanent nerve damage
and paralysis due to the Defendants’ indifference.” Id. at PageID #: 72–74.
II. Standard of Review
When faced with a timely motion, a district court may grant a motion to alter or amend
judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) only if there was (1) a clear error of law, (2) newly
discovered evidence, (3) an intervening change in controlling law, or (4) a need to prevent
manifest injustice. Am. Civil Liberties Union v. McCreary Cty., 607 F.3d 439, 450 (6th Cir.
2010) (quoting Intera Corp. v. Henderson, 428 F.3d 605, 620 (6th Cir. 2005)). A district court
“has considerable discretion in deciding whether to grant [a Rule 59(e)] motion.” Leisure
Caviar, LLC v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv., 616 F.3d 612, 615 (6th Cir. 2010); see also Huff v.
Metro. Life Ins. Co., 675 F.2d 119, 122 (6th Cir. 1982) (“The grant or denial of a Rule 59(e)
motion is within the informed discretion of the district court.”).
Plaintiff’s Motion indicates that he believes there was a clear error of law, or that there is
a need to prevent manifest injustice. See, e.g., ECF No. 6 at PageID #: 74 (“Plaintiff is at a loss
as to how the Court could not find facts to liberally construe that would support his claim of a
constitutional violation when it is clear that the indifference of the Defendants—some of which
was obviously malicious—resulted in his permanent dysfunction and disability.”). Plaintiff does
not argue that he has acquired newly discovered evidence, or that there has been an intervening
change in controlling law.
Plaintiff has not demonstrated a clear error of law or manifest injustice necessitating the
amendment of the Court’s judgment. Failure to provide adequate medical treatment to a prisoner
constitutes a violation of the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual
punishment only when it can be said to result from “deliberate indifference” to the prisoner’s
serious medical needs. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976). To state a claim, a prisoner
must show that he has a serious medical need or condition, and that the prison officials or staff
members in question acted with deliberate indifference to it. Mitchell v. Hininger, 553 F. App’x
602, 604 (6th Cir. 2014). To demonstrate deliberate indifference requires “more than mere
negligence, more even than medical malpractice.” Id. (citing Estelle, 429 U.S. at 106). “It
requires something akin to criminal recklessness: The defendant must ‘know [ ] that inmates face
a substantial risk of serious harm and disregard[ ] that risk by failing to take reasonable measures
to abate it.’” Id. (citing Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 847 (1994)). Furthermore, when a
prisoner has received some treatment for his condition, in order to state a claim, he must show
that the treatment he received, was “so woefully inadequate as to amount to no treatment at all.”
Plaintiff contends that “[t]he medical staff, consisting of Defendant(s), did nothing to
address his condition, despite many attempts by the Plaintiff to obtain care.” ECF No. 6 at
PageID #: 72. Plaintiff had an EMG, MRI, CT scan, and was seen by specialists who assessed
his condition as permanent nerve damage. ECF No. 1 at PageID #: 7–10. He was provided
physical therapy, and was referred to a foot doctor in Columbus for braces and supportive shoes.
Id. at PageID #: 8–9. Accordingly, it is inaccurate to state that Plaintiff received no medical
Plaintiff further argues that surgery would have prevented the pain he is in now, citing the
opinion of a specialist he talked to via video conference. ECF No. 6 at PageID #: 72–73.
Plaintiff was also seen by Dr. Kline, who determined that Plaintiff did not need surgery. ECF
No. 1 at PageID #: 7. Another specialist, evaluating Plaintiff via video conference “to determine
the extent of [Plaintiff’s] nerve damage, [his] need for surgery[,] and what type of procedure [he]
may have to undergo,” did not recommend surgery, instead ordering medication and further
X-rays. Id. at PageID #: 9.
That the doctors, and Plaintiff, disagreed as to the best course of treatment is not enough
to rise to the level of a constitutional violation. The standard for determining whether a course of
treatment is appropriate is whether it is “so grossly incompetent, inadequate, or excessive as to
shock the conscience or to be intolerable to fundamental fairness.” Terrance v. Northville
Regional Psychiatric Hosp., 286 F.3d 834, 844 (6th Cir. 2002). Courts should consider “whether
a reasonable doctor . . . could have concluded his actions were lawful.” Id. Plaintiff has been
seen by numerous medical practitioners, was provided with physical therapy, and was fitted for
braces and supportive shoes. Plaintiff has not demonstrated that the treatment he received, was
“so woefully inadequate as to amount to no treatment at all.” Mitchell, 553 F. App’x at 604; see
generally Hardin v. Sowers, 960 F.2d 149 (6th Cir. 1992) (unreported Table opinion) (finding no
violation of the Eighth Amendment, despite differences of medical opinion concerning the
plaintiff’s illness, because “[t]he record clearly reveal[ed] a constant and conscientious attempt to
treat him.”). Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment rights have not
Plaintiff also alleges that a surgical referral should have been ordered after Dr. Kline’s
October 14, 2015 examination and that Defendants “knew that what they were doing was not
effective in treating Plaintiff’s condition[,] which required immediate intervention.” ECF No. 6
at PageID #: 73–74. Plaintiff’s disagreement with the level of testing or treatment he received
does not rise to the level of a constitutional violation. See Dodson v. Wilkinson, 304 F. App’x
434, 440 (6th Cir. 2008); Ward v. Smith, 100 F.3d 958, 1996 WL 627724, at *1 (6th Cir. Oct. 29,
1996) (“[D]ifferences in judgment between an inmate and prison medical personnel regarding the
appropriate medical diagnosis or treatment are not enough to state a deliberate indifference
claim.”). Therefore, the Court finds that this argument is without merit.
For the foregoing reasons, the Court denies Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Judgment.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
August 18, 2017
/s/ Benita Y. Pearson
Benita Y. Pearson
United States District 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?