Hoeft v. Clark et al

Filing 50

ORDER granting 22 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by District Judge William M. Conley on 4/28/2010. (eds),(ps)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

RICHARD HOEFT, Plaintiff, v. 09-cv-117-wmc1 JOHN CLARK and ANGELA NELSON, Defendants. Plaintiff Richard Hoeft alleges that defendants John Clark and Angela Nelson were deliberately indifferent to his serious dental needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment's pro hibiti o n on cruel and unusual punishment and that defendant Clark retaliated against p lain tiff for filing a petition for habeas corpus. Jurisdiction is present. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. T he defendants filed separate motions for summary judgment. Dkts. ##16 & 22. Judge C rabb recently granted defendant Clark's summary judgment motion. Dkt. #48. Plaintiff fares no better against defendant Nelson's motion as no reasonable jury could find that she violated Hoeft's Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. OPINION AND ORDER

U N D IS PU T ED FACTS The following facts are material and undisputed.

1

This case was reassigned to me pursuant to a March 31, 2010 administrative order.

1

A. Parties From June 4 until September 30, 2008, Hoeft was a prisoner at the Flambeau C orr ection al Center in Hawkins, Wisconsin. Defendant Nelson has worked as a registered n u rse at the Flambeau Correctional Center since October 2006.2 Nelson's duties and

r e s p on sib ilities include performing nursing assessments of inmates, managing health treatm en ts pursuant to health care providers' orders and maintaining inmate medical records. As a registered nurse, Nelson is not licensed or authorized to provide dental care or treatment to inmates.

B . Dental Treatment at Flambeau Correctional Center T he Flambeau Correctional Center does not have an onsite dentist. If an inmate believes he needs dental care, he is required to fill out a Dental Service Request form. The fo rm is given to Health Service Unit staff who review the form and respond by scheduling an appointment for the inmate with an off-site dental professional. W h ile imprisoned at the Flambeau Correctional Center, Hoeft never completed or subm itted a Dental Service Request. (The parties dispute whether during defendant's intake

Nelson is actually employed as a licensed registered nurse by Country Nurses, Inc., w hich contracts with the Department of Corrections to provide nursing services to certain W iscon sin correctional institutions.

2

2

screening of plaintiff on June 4, 2008, he told defendant that he had cavities and a broken tooth and that he needed a root canal and partial dentures.) Hoeft also never filed a c o m plaint requesting dental treatment or indicating that he was denied dental treatment w hile imprisoned at the correctional center. The parties dispute whether Hoeft spoke with N elson at any time about seeing a dentist, so for purposes of this motion we assume Hoeft spo ke with Nelson several times, including at his intake screening, and that Nelson did no thing more than tell him to fill out a dental service request. D espite repeated visits to medical personnel for various physical ailments during his four month stay at the Flambeau Correctional Center, Hoeft never once complained of a dental problem, large or small. For example, on June 11, 2008, Nelson saw Hoeft in the H ealth Services Unit in response to his complaints about a cough. A week later, on June 18 t h , Hoeft was seen by Dr. Springs to follow up on his complaints about carpal tunnel syn dro m e and his cough. Nelson again saw Hoeft on June 25t h regarding his complaints of carpal tunnel syndrome. A little over a month after that, Hoeft was again seen by Dr. S p r i n gs regarding his carpal tunnel syndrome. During each of these exams ovr the course of the summer of 2008, Hoeft did not complain of dental pain or request to be seen by a dentist. This same pattern continued through out the month of September. On September 1 8 , 2008, Nelson saw Hoeft in response to his dyslipidemia. A day later on September 19 t h ,

3

N elso n examined Hoeft regarding his complaints of athlete's foot. Five days later, on S eptem ber 24 t h , shortly before his transfer out of the Flambeau Correctional Center, plaintiff w as examined by Dr. Springs. Again, at no time during any of these examinations did Hoeft com plain of dental pain or request to be seen by a dentist.

OPINION U n d er Fed. R. Civ. P. 56, summary judgment is appropriate if there are no genuine issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. In decidin g a motion for summary judgment, the court must view all facts and draw all inferences from those facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Schuster v. L ucent Tech., Inc., 327 F.3d 569, 573 (7th Cir. 2003). Nonetheless, the party that bears the burden of proof on a particular issue may not rest on its pleadings, but must affirmatively dem onstrate, through the proposal of specific facts, that there is a genuine issue of material fact that requires a trial. Hunter v. Amin, 583 F.3d 486, 489 (7th Cir. 2009) (internal qu otation omitted); see also Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48 (1986). The applicable substantive law will dictate which facts are material. Darst v. Interstate Brands Corp., 512 F.3d 903, 907 (7th Cir. 2008). Further, a factual dispute is "genuine" o n ly if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248; Roger Whitmore's Auto. Serv., Inc. v. Lake County, Ill., 424

4

F .3 d 659, 667 (7th Cir. 2005). The court's function in a summary judgment motion is not to weigh the evidence and determine the truth of the matter but to determine whether there is a genuine issue for trial. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249; Hemsworth v. Quotesmith.Com, Inc., 476 F.3d 487, 490 (7th Cir. 2007). Here, no reasonable trier of fact could find that Hoeft su ffered a punishment at the hands of Nelson. T he Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has explained that "deliberate no nco m plia nce with a valid rule does not convert the consequences that flow automatically from that noncompliance into punishment." Rodriguez v. Briley, 403 F.3d 952, 952-53 (7th C ir. 2005). In other words, an inmate cannot "be permitted to engineer an Eighth

Am endm ent violation." Id. at 953. Therefore, when an inmate fails to comply with a valid rule and as a result suffers some harm, he punishes himself and his Eighth Amendment rights are not violated. Id. H oeft concedes that the Flambeau Correctional Center does not have an onsite dentist and that none of the Health Services Unit staff, including defendant Nelson, are trained or authorized to provide dental care or treatment to inmates. Hoeft also concedes bein g told that if he needed dental care, he was required to fill out a Dental Service Request fo rm and the Health Service Unit staff will review the request and take appropriate action, including scheduling appointments with off-site dentists. Hoeft does not challenge the validity of the correctional center's rule, although he does allege that verbal dental requests

5

are permitted. Even accepting Hoeft's proposed fact that he told defendant Nelson about his dental needs when she examined him on June 4, 2008, and that he mentioned wanting to see a dentist a couple more times during his incarceration at the Flambeau Correctional Center, all Hoeft needed to do was file a Dental Service Request form to be scheduled to be seen by a dentist--a rule of which he concedes being informed by defendant Nelson and that could in any event be found in the institution's handbook. Instead, Hoeft punished himself by failing to comply with the rule.3 At some point the harm an inmate suffers in failing to comply with a valid rule might reach a level where prison officials must intervene, such as a refusal to eat for so long that the inmate is placed near death. Rodriguez, 403 F.3d at 953. Hoeft's alleged circumstances (cavities, broken tooth and need for a root canal and partials) do not, however, approach such a level. While Hoeft claims to have suffered "a lot" of pain while incarcerated at the correction al center, it is undisputed that on seven different occasions he was seen by Health Services Unit staff, including defendant Nelson, during his relatively short stay at the Flam beau Correctional Center and that on none of those occasions did he complain of tooth

Hoeft avers that there was "no paper" to file a Dental Service Request, but neither claim s that he told defendant Nelson or any other institutional staff that he needed paper to file a Dental Service Request, nor that he was denied such paper.

3

6

pain or request to see a dentist.

Further, it is undisputed that Hoeft never filed an

institution al complaint requesting dental treatment, much less challenging the denial of his right to see a dentist while housed at the correctional center. Thus, no reasonable jury could fin d that the harm caused by Hoeft's failure to comply with a valid rule required defendant N elson to intervene. Indeed, the lack of contemporary, corroborating evidence of Hoeft's claimed dental needs, and complete lack of corroborating evidence of the seriousness of those needs leaves the record devoid of evidence sufficient for a jury to find that defendant Nelson's actions -in requiring that Hoeft file a formal written request for dental treatment -- "could result in further significant injury or the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain." Gutierrez v. P eters, 111 F.3d 1364, 1373 (7th Cir. 1997) (internal quotation omitted). Fina lly, even assuming that defendant Nelson should have scheduled Hoeft to see a dentist at the initial screening based on his statements about his dental needs, no reasonable jury could find that this single failure amounts to deliberate indifference. Inadvertent error, negligence, malpractice or even gross negligence is insufficient to establish deliberate indifference. Washington v. LaPorte County Sheriff's Dept., 306 F.3d 515, 518 (7th Cir. 2002). Assum ing for purposes of summary judgment that Hoeft had a serious dental need w hile at F.C.C. -- a tenuous assumption considering he repeatedly failed to ask for assistance at the time, he has submitted no dental diagnosis regarding his dental needs as of June 4,

7

2008 , and fails to provide specific facts about the severity of his broken tooth -- Nelson at m ost may have acted negligently in not scheduling Hoeft to see a dentist at the intake screening. There is simply no evidence from which a jury could find that Hoeft needed em ergency dental care. Thus, once the screening was done, no jury could find it unreasonable for Nelson to tell Hoeft to comply with the institution's valid rule and file a Dental Service R equ est form. This Hoeft himself declined to do and, accordingly, defendant Nelson's m otion for summary judgment will be granted.

ORDER IT IS ORDERED that: (1) D efendan t Angela Nelson's motion for summary judgment, dkt. #22, is G R AN T ED . The clerk of court is directed to enter judgment in favor of defendants John C lark and Angela Nelson and close the case.

(2)

E n tered this 28t h day of April, 2010. B Y THE COURT: /s/ _ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ W IL L IA M M. CONLEY D istrict Judge

8