Opinion
5:21-cv-00112-MTT-CHW
07-21-2023
OTIS L. BARNES, Plaintiff, v. Major HARRIS, et al., Defendants.
Proceedings Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Before the U.S. Magistrate Judge
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Charles H. Weigle United States Magistrate Judge
Pending before the Court is Defendants' motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 38). Defendants Harris, Ramsey, Reno, and Westfield argue that they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law because the undisputed facts of the case demonstrate that they were not deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff's mental health needs. For the reasons discussed below, it is RECOMMENDED that Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Doc. 38) be GRANTED.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff filed suit against Defendants claiming Eighth Amendment violations for deliberate indifference to his mental health needs related to treatment at Baldwin State Prison (BSP) and Georgia State Prison (GSP). (Doc. 1). Defendants previously filed a motion to dismiss arguing that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies prior to filing suit and that Plaintiff's complaint failed to state a claim for deliberate indifference. (Doc. 23). They also contended that Plaintiff is not entitled to compensatory or punitive damages. (Id.) The motion to dismiss was granted in part and denied in part, which allowed Plaintiff's claims for deliberate indifference to proceed but precluded his claims for compensatory damages. (Docs. 27, 32). Defendants now seek summary judgment, arguing that the undisputed evidence shows they were not deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff's mental health needs. (Doc. 38). Plaintiff has responded to the motion and argues against summary judgment. (Doc. 42).
Although Plaintiff titled his response as “Memorandum and Brief in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment” (Doc. 42), it is best construed as a response in opposition to Defendant's motion for summary judgment because Plaintiff asks that the Court deny the motion and does not request that summary judgment be entered in his favor. See (id.)
RELEVANT FACTS
Plaintiff alleges that BSP Defendants Harris and Ramsey and GSP Defendants Reno and Westfield did not appropriately treat or medicate his mental health conditions despite multiple requests for help, which led to Plaintiff attempting suicide several times. (Doc. 1, p. 3, 5). Plaintiff relates his mental health issues to an August 2019 attack by unknown inmates while he was at Hancock State Prison (HSP), an attack which led to Plaintiff losing an eye. (Id., p. 5).
Following the attack, and upon learning that he might lose his eye, Plaintiff was transferred to BSP in late August 2019 after speaking to Defendant Harris, a psychologist from BSP who diagnosed Plaintiff with “unspecified trauma and stressor-related disorder” and classified Plaintiff as “Mental Health Level 2.” (Docs. 38-3, ¶¶ 7-8; 42, p. 1; 47, p. 1). A Level 2 classification placed Plaintiff on a mental health caseload. (Doc. 38-3, ¶ 7). While Defendant Harris assessed Plaintiff prior to his transfer, Defendant Harris noted that Plaintiff would need to be re-assessed upon arrival at BSP. (Doc. 47, p. 1). Plaintiff's diagnosis remained the same as of April 2020. (Id., p. 57).
Once at BSP, Plaintiff saw Defendant Ramsey on September 18, 2019, when he disclosed that he wanted to hurt himself. (Id., p. 2-4). Defendant Ramsey completed a suicide risk assessment and developed a treatment plan. (Id., p. 5-6). The treatment plan recommended that Plaintiff be placed on suicide precautions with 15-minute checks and notes that he could be given a mattress, he should be given a smock gown, and he could eat normal meals. (Id. p. 5). The treatment plan was ordered by Dr. Mayenda, who is not a defendant in this case. (Id.)
Plaintiff filed Grievance No. 299018 on November 5, 2019, complaining that he had received no sleep medications and had received no treatment or medicine for his PTSD and anxiety. (Docs. 42-1, ¶ 14; 42-6). Defendant Harris responded to the grievance. (Doc. 38-3, ¶ 10). Defendant Harris explained that GDOC did not provide sleep medication to inmates and referred Plaintiff to psychiatry. (Id.)
Plaintiff was transferred to GSP in late November 2019. (Docs. 42-1, ¶15). Once at GSP, Plaintiff continued to express a desire to hurt himself. Each time he expressed these thoughts, treatment providers completed a suicide assessment and developed treatment plans. (Doc. 47, p. 8-13, 20-24, 34-37, 49-54). Based upon these assessments, Plaintiff was placed in the Acute Care Unit (ACU) at least four times. (Doc. 47, p. 7, 19, 32, 48). Plaintiff was treated by mental health counselors, psychologists, nurse practitioners, and a psychiatrist. See, e.g. (Id., p. 14-18, 25-31, 38-47, 55-67). The records do not show that GSP Defendants Reno or Westfield acted as treatment or care providers. Defendant Reno was employed as the Mental Health Director at GSP and had no direct involvement in inmates' treatment. (Doc. 38-9, ¶ 6). Plaintiff asserts that he was told Defendant Westfield was his healthcare provider. (Doc. 42-2, ¶ 6). Defendant Westfield did not join GSP's staff until April 2020, and Plaintiff was not on her caseload. (Doc. 38-10, ¶¶ 2, 7-8).
Plaintiff likewise states that Defendant Reno was his healthcare provider (Doc. 42-2, ¶5), but Defendant Reno's only involvement in Plaintiff's treatment was through her response to Plaintiff's Grievance No. 320235, from February 1, 2021, in which she explained that no medication had been prescribed for Plaintiff. (Docs. 38-7, p. 5-6; 42-2, ¶ 24). She also explained that Plaintiff had never been diagnosed with Paranoid Schizophrenia. (Doc. 38-7, p. 6). Although no previous medications had been prescribed, Reno referred Plaintiff “to see the psychologist for referral to the psychiatrist for psychotropic medication.” (Id.) Only psychiatrists and advance practice nurse practitioners (APNPs) may prescribe psychotropic medications. See, e.g., (Doc. 389, ¶ 6). Based on the record before the Court, no Defendant is a psychiatrist or APNP; therefore, no Defendant can prescribe psychotropic medications. (Doc. 38-2, ¶ 7).
SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD
Pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, summary judgment is proper “if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). The party moving for summary judgment bears the burden of informing the Court of the basis for its motion, and of citing “the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any,” that support summary judgment. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 32224 (1986). In resolving motions for summary judgment, the Court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Tolan v. Cotton, 134 S.Ct. 1861, 1866 (2014).
ANALYSIS
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants' failure to treat his mental health needs and fulfill his requests for medication led to multiple suicide attempts. Defendants move for summary judgment on the grounds that the record shows they were not deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff's mental health needs. To establish a deliberate indifference claim, Plaintiff “must establish (1) a serious medical need; (2) [Defendant's] deliberate indifference to that need; and (3) causation between that indifference and the plaintiff's injury.” Ross v. Corizon Med. Servs., 700 Fed.Appx. 914, 916 (11th Cir. 2017) (citing Mann v. Taser Int'l Inc. 588 F.3d 1291, 1306-1307 (11th Cir. 2009)). Defendants concede the first prong of the analysis because failure to treat mental health disorders can support a claim for deliberate indifference. (Doc. 38-1, p. 9). As to the second prong, “[P]laintiff must demonstrate ‘(1) subjective knowledge of a risk of serious harm; (2) disregard of that risk; (3) by conduct that is more than gross negligence.'” Wade v. McDade, 67 F.4th 1363, 1374 (11th Cir. 2023) (recognizing prior inconsistent panel splits between “mere negligence” and “gross negligence” before finding that “gross negligence” is the correct standard). “Grossly negligent [conduct] includes: ‘(1) grossly inadequate care; (2) a decision to take an easier but less efficacious court of treatment; and (3) medical care that is so cursory as to amount to no treatment at all.” James v. Robinson, 2023 WL 4399985 (11th Cir. 2023) (citing Bingham v. Thomas, 654 F.3d 1171, 1176 (11th Cir. 2001)). “To establish deliberate indifference to the risk of suicide, a plaintiff must show that defendant deliberately disregarded ‘a strong likelihood rather than a mere possibility' that the prisoner would harm himself.” DiPietro v. Barron, 2023 WL 1770364 (11th Cir. 2023) (citing Gish v. Thomas, 516 F.3d 952, 954 (11th Cir. 2008)). As discussed below, the undisputed facts show that no Defendant acted with deliberate indifference to Plaintiff's mental health needs.
The undisputed record shows that there is no evidence that any mental health treatment provider ignored or failed to treat Plaintiff's mental health disorders or ignored Plaintiff when he expressed the desire to harm himself. Because Defendant Westfield never treated Plaintiff, Plaintiff cannot show that she knew about his mental health disorders at all, much less that she failed to treat him appropriately. Defendant Reno did not directly treat inmates and merely responded to one of Plaintiff's grievances in her capacity as mental health director. Defendant Harris, in his only direct interaction with Plaintiff, evaluated Plaintiff following the August 2019 attack and placed Plaintiff on the Level 2 mental health caseload. Defendant Harris's actions facilitated Plaintiff's transfer from HSP, a prison without mental health providers, to BSP, specifically so that Plaintiff could receive mental health treatment. Defendant Harris had no further interaction with Plaintiff, except to answer his November 2019 grievance. In September 2019, Defendant Ramsey, the only defendant to whom Plaintiff expressed ideations of self-harm, completed a suicide risk assessment and developed a treatment plan upon Plaintiff's disclosure. She did not ignore Plaintiff or refuse to provide him care. The completion of this assessment was Defendant Ramsey's only time treating Plaintiff, Although GSP Defendant Reno did not directly care for Plaintiff, his future ideations of self-harm were not ignored once he was transferred to GSP. GSP mental health providers completed assessments and treatment plans each time Plaintiff expressed ideations of self-harm. As a result of his later disclosures, he was placed and treated in the ACU several times. The treatment records do not indicate that Plaintiff failed to receive any ordered treatment by any treatment provider at BSP or GSP, much less by Defendants who barely had any role in Plaintiff's treatment and did not have any role in Plaintiff's ACU admissions. Simply put, no action by any Defendant (or any other provider) relating to Plaintiff's mental health treatment demonstrates that they acted negligently, much less with the gross negligence required to prove a deliberate indifference claim.
Plaintiff suggests that he needed medication and disagrees with the treatment he received, but that disagreement cannot form the basis of a deliberate indifference claim. See, e.g., Stewart v. Lewis, 789 Fed.Appx. 825, 828 (11th Cir. 2019) (explaining that a difference in medical opinion will not support a deliberate indifference claim). Plaintiff's argument seems to rest on the fact that he requested medication and treatment and did not receive it. (Doc. 42). As discussed above, Plaintiff was not ignored by any prison mental health treatment provider, and the record clearly demonstrates that he received treatment. Regarding medication, later records seem to indicate that he received mental health medications sometime after filing suit (Doc. 42-4), but that note in no way establishes that he had prescriptions for any medication during the time period at issue in his suit, that these Defendants could have prescribed him medications, that these Defendants prevented him from receiving those medications, or that their actions (or inactions) contributed to his alleged suicide attempts. Based on this record, there are no genuine issues of material fact, and Defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED that Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Doc. 38) be GRANTED and that judgment be entered for Defendants as to all claims.
OBJECTIONS
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the parties may serve and file written objections to this Recommendation, or seek an extension of time to file objections, WITHIN FOURTEEN (14) DAYS after being served with a copy thereof. Any objection is limited in length to TWENTY (20) PAGES. See M.D. Ga. L.R. 7.4. The District Judge shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the Recommendation to which objection is made. All other portions of the Recommendation may be reviewed for clear error.
The parties are further notified that, pursuant to Eleventh Circuit Rule 3-1, “[a] party failing to object to a magistrate judge's findings or recommendations contained in a report and recommendation in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) waives the right to challenge on appeal the district court's order based on unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions if the party was informed of the time period for objecting and the consequences on appeal for failing to object. In the absence of a proper objection, however, the court may review on appeal for plain error if necessary in the interests of justice.”
SO RECOMMENDED