Wright v. Westbrooks et al
Filing
10
MEMORANDUM OPINION OF THE COURT signed by Senior Judge John T. Nixon on 8/24/2015. (xc: Pro se party by regular and certified mail.) (ds)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION
JULIAN ANDREW WRIGHT
Plaintiff,
]
]
]
v.
]
]
WARDEN BRUCE WESTBROOKS, et al. ]
Defendants.
]
No. 3:15-0708
Senior Judge Nixon
M E M O R A N D U M
The
plaintiff,
Rutherford
County
proceeding
pro
Correctional
Work
se,
is
Center
an
in
inmate
at
the
Murfreesboro,
Tennessee.
He brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against
Bruce Westbrooks, Warden of the Deberry Special Needs Facility;
Eric Qualls, former Warden of the Bledsoe County Correctional
Complex; Doug Cook, present Warden at the Bledsoe County facility;
Jane Doe, a transportation officer at the Charles Bass Correctional
Complex; John Doe, former Warden of the Charles Bass Correctional
Complex; Dr. Baker, an orthopedic surgeon at the Meharry Hospital
in Nashville; Nurse Helen, a nurse practitioner at the Bledsoe
County Correctional Complex; and Dr. Palcedo, a physician at
Deberry; seeking damages.
While
the
plaintiff
was
confined
1
at
the
Charles
Bass
Correctional Complex, he began to experience pain in his left knee.
On April 1, 2014, he boarded a bus bound for Deberry where he would
have an MRI performed on the left knee.
As the bus was leaving the prison, it was involved in an
accident with a local Sheriff’s Department patrol car. According to
the complaint, the plaintiff sat in the bus for several hours
before being returned to his cell. Plaintiff’s knee continued to
hurt but Nurse Helen would not give him pain medication for it in
the absence of a prescription from a doctor.
Two days later, the plaintiff was transported to Meharry
Hospital where he was examined by Dr. Baker. An MRI of the knee
revealed substantial damage. Dr. Baker immediately scheduled the
plaintiff for surgery. Following surgery on the knee, Dr. Baker
noted that the plaintiff would not need physical therapy. However,
the plaintiff was assigned to a lower bunk and was given crutches
to help him walk.
Upon his return to the Bledsoe County Correctional Complex,
the plaintiff was reassigned to an upper bunk, even though he had
already been approved for a lower bunk. The plaintiff complains
that his knee continues to bother him and that he has been the
victim of “failed medical treatment”.
In order to establish a claim for relief under § 1983, the
plaintiff must plead and prove that the defendants, while acting
under color of state law, deprived him of some right or privilege
2
secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States. Parratt
v. Taylor, 101 S.Ct. 1908, 1913 (1981).
The Eighth Amendment guarantees a prisoner the right to
medical care. This right has been violated when prison officials
are deliberately indifferent to a prisoner’s serious medical needs.
Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976).
In this case, the plaintiff admits that he has received
medical attention for his knee. He was transported to an outside
hospital for an MRI and surgery by an orthopedic specialist. Prison
staff are aware of his condition and prescribed medicine for his
pain, even though the medication only helps for a short period of
time and sometimes hurts his stomach. Docket Entry No.9 at pg.4.
The plaintiff was given crutches to help him walk. In short, the
defendants
have
not
been
deliberately
indifferent
to
the
plaintiff’s serious medical needs. This dispute, therefore, arises
over the adequacy of the care provided the plaintiff.
When a prisoner has received some medical attention and his
claim is a challenge to the adequacy of the care provided, federal
courts are generally reluctant to second guess medical judgments
and constitutionalize claims which sound in state tort law. Hill
v.Jones, 211 F.3d 1269 (6th Cir.2000). Medical malpractice does not
become a constitutional tort merely because the victim is a
prisoner. Estelle, supra at 429 U.S. 105-106. Therefore, the
plaintiff has failed to describe conduct resulting in a violation
3
of
federal
law.
Comstock
v.
McCrary,
273
F.3d
693,
703
(6th
Cir.2001).
Absent a violation of federal law, the plaintiff is unable to
prove every element of a § 1983 cause of action. Consequently, he
has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. When
a prisoner proceeding in forma pauperis has failed to state a claim
for relief, the Court is obliged to dismiss the instant action sua
sponte. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
An appropriate order will be entered.
____________________________
John T. Nixon
Senior District Judge
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?