Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 03 CV 70960 DT
June 4, 2003
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
This matter is before the court on a plaintiffs Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings filed May 6, 2003. This is a pro se prisoner case where the plaintiff claims the defendant violated his Eighth Amendment rights by failing to provide adequate medical care. He claims that the delay in medical treatment and subsequent eye surgery by the defendant resulted in his becoming blind in one eye. For the reasons stated in this opinion, it is ordered that plaintiffs motion be denied as premature.
This is a Section 1983 case, so to establish a prima facie case under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, plaintiff must prove two elements: (1) the action complained of occurred "under color of law" and (2) the action deprived plaintiff of a constitutional or a federal statutory right. Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 535. 1981. In this case, the plaintiff alleges that the defendant was a ophthalmologist under contract with the State of Michigan to provide eye care and treatment to prisoners. The plaintiff was a prisoner whom the defendant treated. While plaintiff must establish that the defendant, normally a private actor, is subject to the provisions of § 1983, for the purposes of this motion, that showing will be presumed. Through the plaintiffs allegations the first element of Section 1983 has been fulfilled.
Plaintiff must still establish that the actions of the defendant deprived him of rights under the Eighth Amendment. In Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 97 S.Ct. 285, 292, 50 L.Ed.2d 251 (1976), the Supreme Court held that "deliberate indifference to serious medical needs of prisoners constitutes the `unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain', Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153 at 173, 96 S.Ct. 2909 at 2925, 49 L.Ed.2d 859 (1976), proscribed by the Eighth Amendment." 429 U.S. 104. This standard is two-pronged. The plaintiff must establish deliberate indifference on the part of prison officials and must also demonstrate that the prisoner's medical needs were serious. Ramos v. Lamm, 639 F.2d 559, 575 (10th Cir. 1980); West v. Keve, 571 F.2d 158, 161 (3rd Cir. 1978). In order to state a cognizable claim, a prisoner must allege acts or omissions sufficiently harmful to evidence deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. In the immediate case, plaintiff alleges that the defendant was deliberately indifferent to his medical needs by postponing laser surgery in favor of an extended aspirin regimen. Further, plaintiff alleges his medical needs were serious, as they later caused the permanent loss of vision in his right eye. If proved, plaintiffs allegations would establish a prima facie case.
The issue before the court is the plaintiffs claim that under FRCP 12(c) he is entitled to judgment on the pleadings. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 12(c) provide that:
After the pleadings are closed but within such time as not to delay the trial, any party may move for judgment on the pleadings. If, on a motion for judgment on the pleadings, matters outside the pleadings are presented to and not excluded by the court, the motion shall be treated as one for summary judgment and disposed of as provided in Rule 56, and all parties shall be given reasonable opportunity to present all material made pertinent to such a motion by Rule 56.
As noted, this rule establishes that the pleadings must be closed before such a motion for judgment is made. The plaintiff filed this case on March 10, 2003, and the defendant answered the complaint on March 26, 2003. The defendant denied all the allegations in the complaint with respect to liability and raised seventeen affirmative defenses. Until the facts are resolved or the pleadings are closed, a motion for judgment on the pleadings is premature.
The duty of the court when considering this motion is to "view all inferences to be drawn from the underlying facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party" Burchett v. Kiefer, 310 F.3d 937. (6th Cir. 2002). In addition, "all allegations of fact by the party opposing the motion are accepted as true." Schroll v. Plunkett, 760 F. Supp. 1385. D.Or. 1991, affirmed 932 F.2d 973. The defendant, the non-moving party, in the instant case has advanced seventeen affirmative defenses and contests several of the plaintiffs allegations. No discovery plan pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.Pro. Rule 25(f) has been filed. Nor has the court even entered a scheduling order setting the date discovery closes. Accepting all allegations of the non-moving party (the defendant) as true, plaintiff has not established a set of facts which would entitle him to relief. Thus, while he may ultimately prevail, his current motion does not meet the requisite standard.
A scheduling order is entered along with this Opinion and Order.
As the court held in Republic Ins. Co. v. Culbertson 717 F. Supp. 415 (E.D.Va. 1989), "[j]udgment on the pleadings is appropriate when all material allegations of fact are admitted in the pleadings and only questions of law remain." The material allegations of fact before the court in the instant case are disputed by the defendant in several respects, specifically including allegations 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 20. This discrepancy alone is enough to substantiate a denial of the plaintiffs motion.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the plaintiffs Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings IS DENIED.
Either party to this action may object to and seek review of this Opinion and Order, but must act within ten days of service of a copy hereof as provided for in 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1) and E.D. Mich. LR 72.1(d)(2). Failure to file specific objections constitutes a waiver of any further right of appeal. United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981), Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985), Howard v. Secretary of HHS, 932 F.2d 505 (6th Cir. 1991). Filing objections which raise some issues but fail to raise others with specificity will not preserve all objections that party might have to this Opinion and Order. Smith v. Detroit Fed'n of Teachers Local 231, 829 F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir. 1987), Willis v. Secretary of HHS, 931 F.2d 390, 401 (6th Cir. 1991). Pursuant to E.D. Mich. LR 72.1(d)(2), a copy of any objection must be served upon this Magistrate Judge.
Note this especially, at the direction of Judge Cleland: any objections must be labeled as "Objection #1," "Objection #2," etc.; any objection must recite precisely the provision of this Opinion and Order to which it pertains. Not later than ten days after service an objection, the opposing party must file a concise response proportionate to the objections in length and complexity. The response must specifically address each issue raised in the objections, in the same order and labeled as "Response to Objection #1," "Response to Objection #2," etc.