Opinion
1:21CV89-DAS
07-20-2021
LAWRENCE D. HULL PLAINTIFF v. LEE COUNTY ADULT JAIL, ET AL. DEFENDANTS
MEMORANDUM OPINION
DAVID A. SANDERS UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
This matter comes before the court on the pro se prisoner complaint of Lawrence D. Hull, who challenges the conditions of his confinement under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. For the purposes of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, the court notes that the plaintiff was incarcerated when he filed this suit. The plaintiff has brought the instant case under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which provides a federal cause of action against “[e]very person” who under color of state authority causes the “deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws.” 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The plaintiff alleges that, after he was attacked by another inmate at the Lee County Adult Jail, Nurse Practitioner Jamie Burrell provided inadequate medical treatment by giving him only Tylenol to treat his injuries. For the reasons set forth below, the instant case will be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
Factual Allegations
On April 20, 2021, at the Lee County, Mississippi jail, the plaintiff was attacked by inmate Hobson, leaving the plaintiff with swelling in his hand and arm, as well as painful ribs, which made breathing difficult. Sgts. Siliva and Smotherman left the plaintiff in his cell for about two hours before they moved him to medical. Nurse Practitioner Jamie Burrell prescribed the plaintiff Tylenol to treat his injuries, but did not conduct a thorough physical examination. As of May 12, 2021, the date Mr. Hull signed the instant complaint, his hand and arm were swollen, and medical staff had continued treating him with Tylenol.
Denial of Medical Treatment
The plaintiff's allegations in this case must be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. In order to prevail on an Eighth Amendment claim for denial of medical care, a plaintiff must allege facts which demonstrate “deliberate indifference to the serious medical needs of prisoners [which] constitutes ‘unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain' proscribed by the Eighth Amendment . . . whether the indifference is manifested by prison doctors or prison guards in intentionally denying or delaying access to medical care ....” Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S.
97, 104-105, 50 L.Ed.2d 251, 260 (1976); Mayweather v. Foti, 958 F.2d 91, 91 (5th Cir. 1992). The test for establishing deliberate indifference is one of “subjective recklessness as used in the criminal law.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994). Under this standard, a state actor may not be held liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless plaintiff alleges facts which, if true, would establish that the official “knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or safety; the official must both be aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists, and he must also draw the inference.” Id. at 838. Only in exceptional circumstances may a court infer knowledge of substantial risk of serious harm by its obviousness. Id. Negligent conduct by prison officials does not rise to the level of a constitutional violation. Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 106 S.Ct. 662 (1986), Davidson v. Cannon, 474 U.S. 344, 106 S.Ct. 668 (1986). This same subjective deliberate indifference standard has been applied to pre-trial detainees under the Fourteenth Amendment as well as convicted inmates under the Eighth Amendment. See Hare v. City of Corinth, 74 F.3d 633, 648 (5th Cir. 1996).
In cases such as this, arising from delayed medical attention rather than a clear denial of medical attention, a plaintiff must demonstrate that he suffered substantial harm resulting from the delay in order to state a claim for a civil rights violation. Mendoza v. Lynaugh, 989 F.2d 191, 193 (5thCir. 1993); Campbell v. McMillin, 83 F.Supp.2d 761 (S. D. Miss. 2000). A prisoner's mere disagreement with medical treatment provided by prison officials does not state a claim against the prison for violation of the Eighth Amendment by deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. Gibbs v. Grimmette, 254 F.3d 545 (5th Cir.2001), Norton v. Dimazana, 122 F.3d 286, 292 (5th Cir. 1997).
“Deliberate indifference is not established when medical records indicate that [the plaintiff] was afforded extensive medical care by prison officials.” Brauner v. Coody, 793 F.3d 493, 500 (5th Cir. 2015). Nor is it established by a physician not accommodating a prisoner's requests in a manner he desired or the prisoner's disagreement with the treatment. Id.; Miller v. Wayback House, 253 Fed.Appx. 399, 401 (5th Cir. 2007). To meet his burden in establishing deliberate indifference on the part of medical staff, the plaintiff “must show that [medical staff] refused to treat him, ignored his complaints, intentionally treated him incorrectly, or engaged in any similar conduct that would clearly evince a wanton disregard for any serious medical needs.” Brauner, 793 F.3d at 498.
In this case, officers waited two hours before transporting the plaintiff to medical for treatment. Once there, a Nurse Practitioner treated the plaintiff with Tylenol for pain and continued that treatment, though the plaintiff complained that his hand and arm remained swollen. The plaintiff thus would like more aggressive treatment of his injuries, but, as set forth above, his disagreement with the course of treatment does not rise to the level of a constitutional claim.
Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, the plaintiff's allegations regarding denial of adequate medical care will be dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. A judgment consistent with this memorandum opinion will issue today.
SO ORDERED