Opinion
Case No. 2:05-cv-143.
June 3, 2008
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Gregory Hardy, an inmate at the Ionia Maximum Correctional Facility, filed this pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against defendants Dr. Cabrera, Recreation Gym Director Cady, Assistant Deputy Warden (ADW) Christian Soderman, Resident Unit Manager (RUM) M. Malette, Assistant Resident Unit Supervisor (ARUS) M. Cope, Resident Unit Officer (RUO) LaCrosse, ARUS McLaughlin, ARUS P. Harrington, ADW R. Haas, Kinross Correctional Facility (KCF) Warden Linda M. Metrish, Librarian R. Winnicki, ARUS James Gillotte, Deputy Warden John Boynton, Deputy Warden Secretary R. Hoornstra, and Parole Board Members James Quinlan and Margie McNutt. On October 15, 2007, I issued a Report and Recommendation to dismiss defendants Hass, Metrish, LaCrosse, Harrington, Cope, Malette, Boynton, Cady, Gillotte, Hoornstra, McLaughlin and Winnicki.
Plaintiff alleges in his complaint that on June 30, 2003, Dr. Cabrera provided inadequate medical care by discharging plaintiff from mental health treatment and taking plaintiff off psychotropic medications that plaintiff had taken for over 22 years. Plaintiff alleges that defendant Cabrera threatened to transfer plaintiff to the Huron Valley Correctional Facility if plaintiff refused to "sign-off" his complaint. Plaintiff asserts emotional injury, a violation of his Fourteenth Amendment rights, and a violation of the Eighth Amendment.
Defendant Dr. Cabrera moves for summary judgment. Summary judgment is appropriate only if the moving party establishes that there is no genuine issue of material fact for trial and that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-323 (1986). If the movant carries the burden of showing there is an absence of evidence to support a claim or defense, then the party opposing the motion must demonstrate by affidavits, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, that there is a genuine issue of material fact for trial. Id. at 324-25. The nonmoving party cannot rest on its pleadings but must present "specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." Id. at 324 (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e)). The evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 251-52 (1986). Thus, any direct evidence offered by the plaintiff in response to a summary judgment motion must be accepted as true. Muhammad v. Close, 379 F.3d 413, 416 (6th Cir. 2004) ( citing Adams v. Metiva, 31 F.3d 375, 382 (6th Cir. 1994)). However, a mere scintilla of evidence in support of the nonmovant's position will be insufficient. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 251-52. Ultimately, the court must determine whether there is sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find for the plaintiff." Id. at 252. See also Leahy v. Trans Jones, Inc., 996 F.2d 136, 139 (6th Cir. 1993) (single affidavit, in presence of other evidence to the contrary, failed to present genuine issue of fact); cf. Moore, Owen, Thomas Co. v. Coffey, 992 F.2d 1439, 1448 (6th Cir. 1993) (single affidavit concerning state of mind created factual issue).
The Eighth Amendment prohibits the infliction of cruel and unusual punishment against those convicted of crimes. U.S. Const. amend. VIII. The Eighth Amendment obligates prison authorities to provide medical care to incarcerated individuals, as a failure to provide such care would be inconsistent with contemporary standards of decency. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 102, 103-04 (1976). The Eighth Amendment is violated when a prison official is deliberately indifferent to the serious medical needs of a prisoner. Id. at 104-05; Comstock v. McCrary, 273 F.3d 693, 702 (6th Cir. 2001).
A claim for the deprivation of adequate medical care has an objective and a subjective component. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994). To satisfy the objective component, the plaintiff must allege that the medical need at issue is sufficiently serious. Id. In other words, the inmate must show that he is incarcerated under conditions posing a substantial risk of serious harm. Id. The objective component of the adequate medical care test is satisfied "[w]here the seriousness of a prisoner's need for medical care is obvious even to a lay person." Blackmore v. Kalamazoo County, 390 F.3d 890, 899 (6th Cir. 2004). If, however the need involves "minor maladies or non-obvious complaints of a serious need for medical care," Blackmore, 390 F.3d at 898, the inmate must "place verifying medical evidence in the record to establish the detrimental effect of the delay in medical treatment." Napier v. Madison County, Ky., 238 F.3d 739, 742 (6th Cir. 2001).
The subjective component requires an inmate to show that prison officials have "a sufficiently culpable state of mind in denying medical care." Brown v. Bargery, 207 F.3d 863, 867 (6th Cir. 2000) (citing Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834). Deliberate indifference "entails something more than mere negligence," Farmer, 511 U.S. at 835, but can be "satisfied by something less than acts or omissions for the very purpose of causing harm or with knowledge that harm will result." Id. Under Farmer, "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 837.
Not every claim by a prisoner that he has received inadequate medical treatment states a violation of the Eighth Amendment. Estelle, 429 U.S. at 105. As the Supreme Court explained:
[A]n inadvertent failure to provide adequate medical care cannot be said to constitute an unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain or to be repugnant to the conscience of mankind. Thus, a complaint that a physician has been negligent in diagnosing or treating a medical condition does not state a valid claim of medical mistreatment under the Eighth Amendment. Medical malpractice does not become a constitutional violation merely because the victim is a prisoner. In order to state a cognizable claim, a prisoner must allege acts or omissions sufficiently harmful to evidence deliberate indifference to serious medical needs.Estelle, 429 U.S. at 105-06 (quotations omitted). Thus, differences in judgment between an inmate and prison medical personnel regarding the appropriate medical diagnoses or treatment are not enough to state a deliberate indifference claim. Sanderfer, 62 F.3d at 154-55; Ward v. Smith, No. 95-6666, 1996 WL 627724, at *1 (6th Cir. Oct. 29, 1996). This is so even if the misdiagnosis results in an inadequate course of treatment and considerable suffering. Gabehart v. Chapleau, No. 96-5050, 1997 WL 160322, at *2 (6th Cir. Apr. 4, 1997).
The Sixth Circuit distinguishes "between cases where the complaint alleges a complete denial of medical care and those cases where the claim is that a prisoner received inadequate medical treatment." Westlake v. Lucas, 537 F.2d 857, 860 n. 5 (6th Cir. 1976). Where, as here, "a prisoner has received some medical attention and the dispute is over the adequacy of the treatment, federal courts are generally reluctant to second guess medical judgments and to constitutionalize claims which sound in state tort law." Westlake v. Lucas, 537 F.2d 857, 860 n. 5 (6th Cir. 1976); see also, Brock v. Crall, No. 00-5914, 2001 WL 468169, at *2 (6th Cir. Apr. 27, 2001); Jones v. Martin, No. 00-1522, 2001 WL 223859, at *1 (6th Cir. Feb. 28, 2001); Williams v. Mattson, No. 99-1796, 2000 WL 924145, at *1 (6th Cir. June 28, 2000); Davis v. Ulep, No. 97-2124, 1999 WL 98390, at *1 (6th Cir. Jan. 29, 1999); Cain v. Huff, No. 96-1613, 1997 WL 377029, at * 4 (6th Cir. July 2, 1997); Gabehart v. Chapleau, No. 96-5050, 1997 WL 160322, at * 2 (6th Cir. Apr. 4, 1997).
Defendant Dr. Cabrera has explained plaintiff's treatment and mental health care. Dr. Cabrera is responsible for diagnosis and treatment of inmates suffering major mental illness. Dr. Cabrera supervises a team that covers the Parnall Correctional Facility (SMT) and the G. Robert Cotton Correctional Facility. Based upon plaintiff's institutional records, Dr. Cabrera has asserted that plaintiff first entered the Michigan Department of Corrections in 1996. On two occasions plaintiff was housed in a correctional facility where Dr. Cabrera supervised mental health care and treatment. Plaintiff was housed at SMT from April 8, 1997, until November 4, 1999. During this time period there are no records from the out-patient mental health team, indicating that plaintiff was not admitted for mental health treatment with Dr. Cabrera's team during that time period.
On July 3, 2002, plaintiff was transferred back to SMT where he remained incarcerated until October 28, 2003. Plaintiff had received a diagnosis of major depressive disorder with psychosis and claimed that he was diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia. Plaintiff also claimed to have received the medications Zoloft and Zyprexa since 1989. Neither diagnosis nor any administration of Zoloft or Zyprexa were part of plaintiff's records during his initial incarceration at SMT. If plaintiff did suffer a major mental illness, his treatment would be by the outpatient mental health team. Otherwise, plaintiff would be treated by Institutional Psychology.
Plaintiff began treatment with the outpatient mental health team and Dr. Cabrera in July 2002. At that time plaintiff's medical records were reviewed. Plaintiff's records between October 24, 1996, until August 28, 2001, contained no psychiatric progress notes nor any prescribed prescriptions. This fact alone raised substantial doubt as to whether plaintiff suffered with a major depressive disorder with psychosis or paranoid schizophrenia.
Plaintiff complained of depression and hallucinations. However, clinical observations never supported psychosis. Over a period of time, the clinical team questioned the accuracy of plaintiff's diagnosis and his need for medication. Plaintiff was taking Zoloft and Zyprexa which have very serious side effects, including death. Prior to treatment by Dr. Cabrera's team, other clinicians had noted that plaintiff's psychiatric complaints appeared to be "malingering."
On some occasions plaintiff reported the absence of psychosis or depression and on other occasions plaintiff reported that his problems would reappear. Plaintiff was taking the same medications during this time period, which cast further doubt about his diagnosis. Plaintiff then began to use psychiatric complaints to get out of school, blaming his medication. Plaintiff's medications were discontinued and his complaints did not change. However, at one point it was reported by a social case worker that plaintiff was deteriorating in mood. Dr. Cabrera re-prescribed the Zoloft.
On April 8, 2003, Dr. Cabrera noted that plaintiff's mood was within normal range. Dr. Cabrera informed plaintiff that he wanted to eliminate the medication in the future. It was reported on April 14, 2003, that plaintiff had not taken medication for four days. At that point the medication was discontinued and Dr. Cabrera's team followed plaintiff's progress over the next six months. Plaintiff's mood was within normal limits during that time period. Plaintiff then signed a Notice of Intent to Terminate Voluntary Treatment. Plaintiff was discharged from the care of the outpatient mental health team. Plaintiff was diagnosed with malingering pedophilia and personality disorder NOS (unspecified). Dr. Cabrera believes that at the time of plaintiff's discharge, plaintiff did not suffer from a major mental illness and did not require psychotropic medication.
It is clear that plaintiff received mental health care and treatment by Dr. Cabrera and his team. Plaintiff disagrees with the progress of the treatment. However, plaintiff cannot establish that his Eighth Amendment rights were violated by Dr. Cabrera.
Dr. Cabrera alternatively moves for dismissal based upon qualified immunity. Government officials, performing discretionary functions, generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. Dietrich v. Burrows, 167 F.3d 1007, 1012 (6th Cir. 1999); Turner v. Scott, 119 F.3d 425, 429 (6th Cir. 1997); Noble v. Schmitt, 87 F.3d 157, 160 (6th Cir. 1996); Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982). An "objective reasonableness" test is used to determine whether the official could reasonably have believed his conduct was lawful. Dietrich, 167 F.3d at 1012; Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 641 (1987).
The procedure for evaluating claims of qualified immunity is tripartite: First, we determine whether a constitutional violation occurred; second, we determine whether the right that was violated was a clearly established right of which a reasonable person would have known; finally, we determine whether the plaintiff has alleged sufficient facts, and supported the allegations by sufficient evidence, to indicate that what the official allegedly did was objectively unreasonable in light of the clearly established constitutional rights. Williams v. Mehra, 186 F.3d 685, 690 (6th Cir. 1999).
When determining whether a right is clearly established, this court must look first to decisions of the United States Supreme Court, then to decisions of the Sixth Circuit and to other courts within this Circuit, and finally to decisions of other circuits. Dietrich, 167 F.3d at 1012. An official action is not necessarily protected by qualified immunity merely because the very action in question has not previously been held to be unlawful. Rather, in light of pre-existing law, the unlawfulness of the official's conduct must be apparent. Dietrich, 167 F.3d at 1012; Wegener v. City of Covington, 933 F.2d 390, 392 (6th Cir. 1991).
When making a qualified immunity analysis, the facts must be interpreted in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Part of the analysis is to determine whether there are any genuinely disputed questions of material fact. Kain v. Nesbitt, 156 F.3d 669, 672 (6th Cir. 1998). Where there is a genuinely disputed question of fact, it is for the trier of fact to resolve, not the judge. "This would be true notwithstanding that the trial judge found the [defendant] officer to be more credible than the plaintiff because it is not for the court to make credibility determinations at this stage of the proceeding." Id.
The operation of the qualified immunity standard depends substantially upon the level of generality at which the relevant legal rule is to be identified.
The contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right. This is not to say that an official action is protected by qualified immunity unless the very action in question has previously been held unlawful, but it is to say that in light of the preexisting law the unlawfulness must be apparent.Anderson, 483 U.S. at 639-40. See also Durham v. Nu'Man, 97 F.3d 862, 866 (6th Cir. 1996), cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1157 (1997).
The Sixth Circuit has observed:
A right is not considered clearly established unless it has been authoritatively decided by the United States Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or the highest court of the state in which the alleged constitutional violation occurred.Durham, 97 F.3d at 866 (citing Robinson v. Bibb, 840 F.2d 349, 351 (6th Cir. 1988)).
Thus, qualified immunity is not triggered only where the very action in question was previously held unlawful. Anderson, 483 U.S. at 639-40. Rather, the test is whether the contours of the right were sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violated plaintiff's federal rights. Id.
Furthermore, a defendant need not actively participate in unlawful conduct in order to be liable under Section 1983. Rather, a defendant may be liable where he has a duty to protect a plaintiff and fails to comply with this duty. Durham, 97 F.3d at 866-868 (holding that a nurse and a security guard at a state hospital may be liable under Section 1983 where they do not take action to prevent a patient from being beaten). See also McHenry v. Chadwick, 896 F.2d 184 (6th Cir. 1990) (a correctional officer who observes an unlawful beating may be liable under Section 1983 even though he did not actively participate in the beating), and Bruner v. Dunaway, 684 F.2d 422 (6th Cir. 1982), cert. denied sub nom, Bates v. Bruner, 459 U.S. 1171 (1983) (police officers who stood by and observed an unlawful beating by fellow officers could be held liable under Section 1983).
When faced with a qualified immunity defense, the court must first determine whether or not the plaintiff has stated a claim upon which relief can be granted. Siegert v. Gilley, 500 U.S. 226, 232 (1991); Turner, 119 F.3d at 429. If the court answers that question in the affirmative, the court goes on to determine whether or not the right allegedly violated was clearly established. Turner, 119 F.3d at 429. These are both purely legal questions. The immunity issue should not be resolved if there are factual disputes on which the issue of immunity turns such that it cannot be determined before trial whether the defendants' conduct violated clearly established rights. Hall v. Shipley, 932 F.2d 1147, 1154 (6th Cir. 1991). In the opinion of the undersigned, Dr. Cabrera is entitled to dismissal because plaintiff cannot establish a violation of his constitutional rights.
Accordingly, it is recommended that Dr. Cabrera's motion for summary judgment (Docket #103) be granted, dismissing Dr. Cabrera from this case.
Further, if the court adopts this recommendation the court should decide that an appeal of this action would not be in good faith within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). See McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 611 (6th Cir. 1997). For the same reasons that the court grants defendants' motion for summary judgment, the court can discern no good-faith basis for an appeal. It is recommended that should the plaintiff appeal this decision, the court assess the $455 appellate filing fee pursuant to § 1915(b)(1), see McGore, 114 F.3d at 610-11, unless plaintiff is barred from proceeding in forma pauperis, e.g., by the "three-strikes" rule of § 1915(g). If he is barred, he should be required to pay the $455 appellate filing fee in one lump sum.
NOTICE TO PARTIES: Objections to this Report and Recommendation must be served on opposing parties and filed with the Clerk of the Court within ten (10) days of receipt of this Report and Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b); W.D. Mich. LCivR 72.3(b). Failure to file timely objections constitutes a waiver of any further right to appeal. United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981). See also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985).