Opinion
7:02-CV-287-R.
October 27, 2004
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Came on this day to be considered Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and Plaintiff's response thereto and the Court finds and orders as follows:
This is an action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by an inmate confined in the Allred Unit of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice in Iowa Park, Texas. Defendants are officers at the Allred Unit.
Plaintiff claims that Defendant North used excessive force on August 22, 2002 when he slammed a plastic cup against a wall less than one inch from Plaintiff's face shattering the cup and cutting Plaintiff above his left eye in three places. Plaintiff claims that, immediately after the incident, Defendants North and Contreras denied him access to medical care and it was over three hours after the incident when he was finally seen by a nurse. Complaint ¶ V; Plaintiff's Answers to the Court's Questions. Defendants North and Contreras deny Plaintiff's claims and assert their entitlement to qualified immunity. Defendants' Brief in Support of Their Motion for Summary Judgment p. 2. They also argue that Plaintiff has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies with regard to his allegations against Contreras and that Plaintiff suffered no injury which is an element required to state a claim of excessive force. See id.
"To prevail on an eighth amendment excessive force claim, a plaintiff must establish that force was not `applied in a good-faith effort to maintain or restore discipline, [but] maliciously and sadistically to cause harm' and that he suffered an injury." Eason v. Holt, 73 F.3d 600, 601-02 (5th Cir. 1996) (quoting Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 7, 112 S.Ct. 995, 999 (1992)). Additionally, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e) provides that:
No Federal civil action may be brought by a prisoner confined in a jail, prison, or other correctional facility, for mental or emotional injury suffered while in custody without a prior showing of physical injury.
Review of the summary judgment evidence reflects that, on August 22, 2002, the day of the incident in question, Plaintiff was treated by a nurse for an "abrasion" above his left eyebrow. Defendants' Brief in Support of Their Motion for Summary Judgment, Appendix at pp. 26 32. The abrasion was treated with triple antibiotic ointment. Id. at pp. 26 33. Selmon did not complain of any injury to his eye and no other injuries were noted. Id. at pp. 26 32-33. Three months later, on November 23, 2002, Selmon complained about soreness and floaters in his left eye. Id. at pp. 26 31. He was seen by an optometrist, Dr. Staples, who diagnosed his condition as allergic conjunctivitis. Id. at pp. 26 35. On October 13, 2003, Dr. Potter saw Plaintiff for a complaint of dryness in his left eye. Id. at p. 26. Dr. Potter diagnosed Selmon's condition as allergic conjunctivitis and treated him with eye drops. Id; Plaintiff's Response to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment at p. 13.
The evidence before this Court reflects that Plaintiff suffered no physical injury as a result of the alleged use of force by Officer North. An abrasion, treated with antibiotic ointment, is insufficient to state a physical injury for purposes of liability under the Civil Rights Act. See Siglar v. Hightower, 112 F.3d 191, 193-94 (5th Cir. 1997) (holding that a sore bruised ear lasting for three days did not constitute a physical injury as required to state a claim for excessive force); Luong v. Hatt, 979 F.Supp. 481, 486 (N.D. Tex 1997) (holding that sore muscles, scratches, abrasions and bruises do not constitute a "physical injury" within the meaning of § 1997e(e)). Therefore, Plaintiff's excessive force claim against Defendant North must fail.
Next, Plaintiff claims that Defendants' refusal to provide him with access to medical care immediately after the cup-smashing incident which resulted in a three-hour delay in obtaining treatment. Complaint ¶ V.
In order to state a colorable claim for the denial of medical care under the Eighth Amendment, an inmate must allege acts or omissions "sufficiently harmful to evidence deliberate indifference to serious medical needs." Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106, 97 S.Ct. 285, 292 (1976). "Deliberate indifference" under the Eighth Amendment occurs only where a prison official subjectively knows of and disregards a substantial risk to the inmate's health or safety. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 1979 (1994); Hare v. City of Corinth, Miss., 74 F.3d 633, 650 (5th Cir. 1996). A delay in medical care can, in some instances, constitute an Eighth Amendment violation if it results in substantial harm. Mendoza v. Lynaugh, 989 F.2d 191, 195 (5th Cir. 1993); Wesson v. Oglesby, 910 F.2d 278, 284 (5th Cir. 1990).
While a delay in providing treatment may rise to the level of a constitutional violation, negligent or erroneous medical treatment or judgment does not provide a basis for a § 1983 claim. Graves v. Hampton, 1 F.3d 315, 319 (5th Cir. 1993). As long as jail medical personnel exercise professional medical judgment, their behavior will not violate a prisoner's constitutional rights. See Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307, 322-23, 102 S.Ct. 2452, 2461-62 (1982). A disagreement over the appropriate medical treatment constitutes, at most, a possible claim of medical malpractice appropriately addressed under state law. E.g., Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. at 107-08, 97 S.Ct. at 293; Varnado v. Lynaugh, 920 F.2d 320, 321 (5th Cir. 1991); Fielder v. Bosshard, 590 F.2d 105, 107 (5th Cir. 1979).
The Court has determined, based upon the summary judgment evidence, that Plaintiff suffered an abrasion that was treated with antibiotic ointment. An abrasion does not constitute a serious medical need. See Siglar, 112 F.3d at 193-94; Luong, 979 F.Supp. at 486. Moreover, because Plaintiff makes no claim of substantial harm resulting from the three hour delay in obtaining medical treatment, he has failed to show an Eighth Amendment violation resulting from the delay. See Mendoza, 989 F.2d at 195.
Summary judgment is proper when the pleadings and evidence illustrate that no genuine issue exists as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c); Slaughter v. Southern Talc Co., 949 F.2d 167, 170 (5th Cir. 1991). Disputes concerning material facts are genuine if "the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1429 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc) (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 2510 (1986)). Substantive law provides that an issue is "material" if it involves a fact that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248, 106 S.Ct. at 2510; Burgos v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co., 20 F.3d 633, 635 (5th Cir. 1994). The nonmovant is not required to respond to the motion until the movant properly supports his motion with competent evidence. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 2553 (1986); Tubacex, Inc. v. M/V Risan, 45 F.3d 951, 954 (5th Cir. 1995). However, once the movant has carried his burden of proof, the nonmovant may not sit idly by and wait for trial. Page v. DeLaune, 837 F.2d 233, 239 (5th Cir. 1988).
When a movant carries his initial burden, the burden then shifts to the nonmovant to show that the entry of summary judgment is inappropriate. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322-24, 106 S.Ct. at 2552-53; Duckett v. City of Cedar Park, 950 F.2d 272, 276 (5th Cir. 1992). Although the nonmovant may satisfy this burden by tendering depositions, affidavits, and other competent evidence, "conclusory allegations, speculation, and unsubstantiated assertions are inadequate to satisfy the nonmovant's burden," Douglass, 79 F.3d at 1429, as "the adverse party's response . . . must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e). Merely colorable evidence or evidence not significantly probative, however, will not defeat a properly supported motion for summary judgment. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249-50, 106 S.Ct. at 2510-11. Furthermore, a mere scintilla of evidence will not defeat a motion for summary judgment. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 252, 106 S.Ct. at 2512; Davis v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 14 F.3d 1082, 1086 (5th Cir. 1994).
Summary judgment evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd., v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 1356 (1986); Rosado v. Deters, 5 F.3d 119, 123 (5th Cir. 1993). In addition, factual controversies are resolved in favor of the nonmovant, but only when both parties have submitted evidence of contradictory facts, thus creating an actual controversy. Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d 1069, 1075 (5th Cir. 1994) (en banc). In the absence of any proof, however, the Court does not assume that the nonmovant could or would prove the necessary facts. Id.
In making its determination on the motion, the Court looks at the full record including the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, admissions, and affidavits. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c); Williams v. Adams, 836 F.2d 958, 961 (5th Cir. 1988). However, "the [Court's] function 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, 106 S.Ct. at 2511. The movant's motion for summary judgment will be granted if he meets his burden and the nonmovant fails to make the requisite showing that a genuine issue exists as to any material fact. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c); Campbell v. Sonat Offshore Drilling, Inc., 979 F.2d 1115, 1119 (5th Cir. 1992).
The summary judgment evidence presented in this case establishes that there are no genuine issues of material fact and that Defendants are entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law.
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants' motion for summary judgment is GRANTED and Plaintiff's complaint is hereby dismissed with prejudice as frivolous.
Title 28, United States Code, Section 1915(e)(2)(B)(I) mandates dismissal of any action filed in forma pauperis if the court determines that the claims raised therein are frivolous. An action is frivolous if it lacks an arguable basis in either law or fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 1831 (1989); Henson-El v. Rogers, 923 F.2d 51, 52 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 501 U.S. 1235, 111 S.Ct. 2863 (1991). In this case, Plaintiff's claims lack an arguable basis in law and are, therefore, frivolous.
A copy of this order shall be transmitted to Plaintiff and to Counsel for Defendants.
SO ORDERED.