Callahan v. Wall et al

Filing 50

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying as moot 39 Motion for prima facie Evidence; adopting 41 Report and Recommendations; denying 44 Motion for Re-Hearing; and, denying without prejudice 23 Motion for a Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order. So Ordered by Chief Judge William E. Smith on 11/22/2016. (Jackson, Ryan)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
______________________________
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
ASHBEL T. WALL, II, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
______________________________)
RYAN CALLAHAN,

C.A. No. 16-160 S

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
William E. Smith, Chief Judge.
Before the Court are three pleadings from Plaintiff Ryan
Callahan:

(1)

preliminary

Objection

to

injunction

the

and

denial

temporary

of

his

motion

restraining

for
order

(“Objection” or “Obj. to R&R”) (ECF No. 45), which objects to
the Report & Recommendation (“R&R”) filed by Magistrate Judge
Patricia A. Sullivan on September 27, 2016; (2) Motion for ReHearing (ECF No. 44); and (3) Motion for Prima Facie Evidence
(ECF

No.

39).

For

the

reasons

that

follow,

Plaintiff’s

Objection is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; Plaintiff’s Motion for
Re-Hearing is DENIED; and Plaintiff’s Motion for Prima Facie
Evidence is DENIED AS MOOT.
Plaintiff
Institutions

is
(“ACI”)

an
who

inmate
is

at

seeking

the

Adult

damages

and

Correctional
injunctive

relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for Defendants’ (Ashbel T.
1

Wall, II, Dr. Jennifer Clarke, and the Rhode Island Department
of Corrections (“RIDOC”)) alleged deliberate indifference to his
medical needs. (Compl. ¶¶ 1, 5, 48, ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff filed
a motion for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining
order, requesting immediate medical treatment for pain in his
left foot. (Mem. of Law in Supp. of Pl. Request for PI and TRO
1-2, 3, ECF No. 23.) Magistrate Judge Sullivan held a hearing on
Plaintiff’s motion on September 13, 2016, at which Plaintiff
appeared telephonically.

RIDOC represented that Plaintiff would

be examined the next day by two independent podiatrists pursuant
to a referral for treatment that had been made in July 2016.
(R&R

1,

ECF

No.

41.)

RIDOC

subsequently

confirmed

with

Magistrate Judge Sullivan that Plaintiff was in fact examined by
these two podiatrists on September 14, 2016. (Id.)
The R&R recommends that the Court deny Plaintiff’s motion
for

a

preliminary

injunction

and

temporary

restraining

order

because Plaintiff received the emergency relief that he sought
when he was referred to the podiatrists in July 2016 and was
examined by the podiatrists in September 2016. (Id. at 2, 9.)
The

R&R

concluded

that,

based

on

Plaintiff’s

frequent

interactions with nurses and medical professionals at the ACI on
a variety of medical issues, Plaintiff could not establish that
he was either likely to succeed on the merits of his Eighth
Amendment violation claim or that he would be immediately or
2

irreparably harmed without the injunctive relief. (Id. at 8-9.)
Plaintiff filed an objection to the R&R arguing that his
need

for

submitted

injunctive
by

Dr.

relief

Fish,

one

was

substantiated

of

the

by

podiatrists

the

who

report

examined

Plaintiff on September 14, confirming Plaintiff’s claims of a
genuine medical issue with his left foot. (Obj. to R&R 2, 4, ECF
No. 45.)

Plaintiff urges this Court to reconsider his motion

for injunctive relief based on the information contained in Dr.
Fish’s report. (Id. at 9.)

Plaintiff also argues that this

Court should consider his communications with Defendant Clarke
from November 2015 through May 2016 regarding his efforts to
obtain medical treatment. (Id., see ECF No. 45-1.)
The Eighth Amendment places a duty on prison officials to,
inter alia, “ensure that inmates receive adequate . . . medical
care.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832 (1994).

To violate

the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause, a prison official must
be “deliberate[ly] indifferent” to the “serious medical needs of
prisoners,” id. at 834, 835, because “negligen[ce] in diagnosing
or

treating

medical

a

medical

mistreatment

condition

under

the

[is

Eighth

not]

a

valid

Amendment.”

claim

of

Estelle

v.

Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976); see also DesRosiers v. Moran,
949

F.2d

15,

19

(1st

Cir.

1991)

(“[I]nadvertent

failures

to

provide medical care, even if negligent, do not sink to the
level of deliberate indifference.”).
3

“Deliberate indifference

is

conduct

that

offends

evolving

standards

of

decency

in

a

civilized society.” DesRosiers, 949 F.2d at 18.
“To

succeed

on

an

Eighth

Amendment

claim

based

on

inadequate or delayed medical care, a plaintiff must satisfy
both

a

subjective

and

objective

inquiry[.]”

Leavitt

v.

Correctional Medical Services, Inc., 645 F.3d 484, 497 (1st Cir.
2011).

A

plaintiff

may

satisfy

the

subjective,

“deliberate

indifference” inquiry by showing that: “the treatment provided
[was] so inadequate as to ‘constitute an unnecessary and wanton
infliction of pain’ or to be ‘repugnant to the conscience of
mankind,’” id. (quoting Estelle, 429 U.S. at 105-06); the needed
care was denied as punishment; or “decisions about medical care
[were] made recklessly with ‘actual knowledge of impending harm,
easily preventable.’” Id. (quoting Ruiz-Rosa v. Rullán, 485 F.3d
150,

156

(1st

Cir.

2007)).

A

plaintiff

may

satisfy

the

objective inquiry by showing that a medical need is sufficiently
serious, that is, the medical need “has been diagnosed by a
physician as mandating treatment, . . . is so obvious that even
a lay person would easily recognize the necessity for a doctor’s
attention,” or where “the effect of the delay of treatment” is
clear.

Id.

at

497-98

(quoting

Gaudreault

Salem, 923 F.2d 203, 208 (1st Cir. 1990)).
are likely to overlap. Id. at 498.

4

v.

Municipality

of

The two inquiries

The R&R thoroughly documents the background of Plaintiff’s
foot pain and problems, and this Court adopts these findings.
Plaintiff’s distress is palpable through his repeated attempts
to seek medical attention for the pain in his foot, and he
clearly hopes to receive treatment that will alleviate his pain.
Dr. Fish’s report, however, documents that while surgery may
serve

to

correct

the

position

of

Plaintiff’s

toes

and

may

alleviate his pain, the relevant surgery would neither correct
the

abnormal

positioning

of

Plaintiff is experiencing.

his

foot

nor

the

numbness

that

In addition, the report is clear

that Plaintiff’s physical abnormalities and pain are more likely
caused by the trauma Plaintiff sustained in 2006 and not by the
first

corrective

surgery

in

2013

for

the

problems

with

Plaintiff’s toes.
Plaintiff’s

motion

for

injunctive

relief

requested

immediate medical attention, which he received on September 14,
2016.

Presumably, Dr. Fish’s report has started Plaintiff down

the path of receiving treatment and, hopefully, reprieve from
his

pain.

This

Court

has

carefully

considered

Defendant’s

Objection, but ultimately agrees with the reasoned conclusions
in the R&R.

Plaintiff has not met his burden for injunctive

relief because he is not likely to succeed on the merits of his
Eighth Amendment violation claim.

Based on the evidence before

the Court, Plaintiff has not shown that the Defendants either
5

provided inadequate medical care, denied medical treatment as a
punishment, or made reckless decisions about medical treatment
such

that

Defendants’

indifference

to

F.3d at 497.

behavior

Plaintiff’s

constitutes

medical

issues.

deliberate

See

Leavitt,

645

In addition, none of the evidence, including Dr.

Fish’s report, has indicated that medical treatment has been
mandated, but ignored. See id.
R&R

in

its

entirety

This Court hereby ACCEPTS the

pursuant

to

28

U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1).

Plaintiff’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction and Temporary
Restraining Order is, however, DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
As mentioned above, Plaintiff has also filed a Motion for
Re-Hearing, arguing that his Motion for injunctive relief should
be

granted

based

on

Dr.

Fish’s

Plaintiff’s

claims

of

pain

and

Re-Hearing

1-3,

ECF

(Mot.

for

objected

to

Plaintiff’s

report

problems

motion

No.
for

that
with

44.)

substantiates

his

left

Defendant

re-hearing

foot.
Clarke

because

she

contends that Plaintiff has not yet requested‒or been denied—the
surgery

that

Dr.

Fish

documented

could

alleviate

Plaintiff’s

pain even though it may not correct all of the physical problems
in his foot. (Mem. of Law in Support of Obj. to Mot. for ReHearing
regarding

2,

ECF
the

No.
denial

46-1.)
of

For

the

Plaintiff’s

reasons
motion

for

relief, Plaintiff’s motion for re-hearing is DENIED.

6

stated

above

injunctive

Also

before

the

Court

is

Plaintiff’s

“Motion

for

Prima

Facie Evidence,” in which Plaintiff requests sixteen types of
evidence from the Defendants. (ECF No. 39.)
is

DENIED

AS

MOOT

because

the

proper

Plaintiff’s Motion

form

for

Plaintiff’s

request, as stated by Defendant Wall in his response, would be a
request for the production of documents served directly to the
Defendants pursuant to Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Objection to the R&R
is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, Plaintiff’s Motion for Re-Hearing
is DENIED, and Plaintiff’s Motion for Prima Facie Evidence is
DENIED AS MOOT.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

William E. Smith
Chief Judge
Date: November 22, 2016

7