United States District Court, W.D. Michigan, Southern Division
OPINION AND ORDER
JANET
T. NEFF, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Plaintiff
filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging
certain claims for damages from when he was an inmate in the
Van Buren County Jail (“the Jail”). Defendants
filed a motion for summary judgment. The matter was referred
to the Magistrate Judge, who issued a Report and
Recommendation (R&R), recommending that this Court grant
in part and deny in part Defendants’ motion. The matter
is presently before the Court on Defendants’ objections
to the Report and Recommendation, to which Plaintiff filed a
response. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and
Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3), the Court has performed de novo
consideration of those portions of the Report and
Recommendation to which objections have been made. The Court
denies the objections and issues this Opinion and Order.
In his
Amended Complaint (ECF No. 45), Plaintiff asserts the
following five claims: violation of his Eighth Amendment
right to receive adequate medical care (Count I); violation
of his Eighth Amendment right to not be housed in inhumane
conditions (Count II); municipal liability (Count III);
violation of his Fourteenth Amendment right to receive
adequate medical care (Count IV); and gross negligence (Count
V). The Magistrate Judge determined that Defendants were
entitled to summary judgment on all of Plaintiff’s
claims except (1) Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment denial
of medical treatment claims against Defendants Griffith,
Delarosa, and Boyer (the “individual
Defendants”); and (2) Plaintiff’s municipal
liability claim against Defendant Van Buren County
(“the County”). Defendants object to the
Magistrate Judge’s recommendation that this Court
partially deny summary judgment.
Individual
Defendants.
First,
Defendants challenge the Magistrate Judge’s
determination that there is an issue of fact as to whether
Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment rights were violated by
the individual Defendants and that the individual Defendants
are not entitled to qualified immunity (Objs., ECF No. 71 at
PageID.596). Defendants argue that the record does not
support a finding either that the jail’s medical staff
had specifically instructed the individual Defendants
regarding Plaintiff’s medical condition or that
Plaintiff had requested anti-seizure medication from the
individual Defendants (id. at PageID.597).
Defendants argue that even if it is somehow found that
Defendants made a “reasonable mistake, ” they are
still entitled to qualified immunity where no reasonable
officer, in the same position as the subject individual
Defendants, “could possibly conclude that it would have
been clear to the individual Defendants that their conduct
was unlawful under the then present circumstances”
(id. at PageID.600-601).
In
response, Plaintiff points out that Defendants’
objection takes issue with only the subjective component of
his Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim (ECF No.
72 at PageID.609). Plaintiff argues that the Magistrate Judge
properly determined that, based on the following record
facts, a reasonable juror could, in fact, conclude that the
individual Defendants knew that he was at risk of serious
harm: (1) an Inmate Alert Card indicating that Plaintiff was
taking Lamictal, an anti-seizure medication, was clearly
visible to corrections officers on the floor where Plaintiff
was housed; (2) corrections officers were given a Medical
Form directing that Plaintiff have bottom bunk status until
his release; and (3) Plaintiff unequivocally testified that
he told “every single officer that came through”
about his epilepsy and that he would be “likely to
suffer a seizure” if he did not receive his medication
(id. at PageID.610-614). Plaintiff argues that the
Magistrate Judge properly held that the individual Defendants
are not entitled to qualified immunity where any reasonable
officer in the same position would have taken reasonable
measures for Plaintiff’s safety (id. at
PageID.614-615).
The
Court agrees with Plaintiff that Defendants’ argument
fails to demonstrate any factual or legal error in the
Magistrate Judge’s Eighth Amendment analysis or
conclusion. The Sixth Circuit has held that “[b]ecause
government officials do not readily admit the subjective
component of this test, it may be ‘demonstrated in the
usual ways, including inference from circumstantial
evidence…and a fact finder may conclude that a prison
official knew of a substantial risk from the very fact that
the risk was obvious.” Dominguez v. Corr. Med.
Servs., 555 F.3d 543, 550 (6th Cir. 2009). Here, from
the record evidence, the Magistrate Judge properly concluded
that a question of fact exists as to whether the individual
Defendants knew that Plaintiff was at risk of serious harm
and failed to act reasonably in response thereto (R&R,
ECF No. 70 at PageID.589). Further, Defendants’
argument fails to identify any error in the Magistrate
Judge’s qualified immunity analysis, specifically the
Magistrate Judge’s determination that “denial by
a jail official of an inmate’s request for medical care
which the jail previously prescribed violates the Eighth
Amendment” (id.). See Harlow v.
Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818-19 (1982) (“If the
law was clearly established, the immunity defense ordinarily
should fail, since a reasonably competent public official
should know the law governing his conduct.”).
Defendants’ objection is therefore denied.
The
County.
Second,
Defendants challenge the Magistrate Judge’s
determination that there are questions of fact as to the
County’s liability (Objs., ECF No. 71 at PageID.596).
Defendants argue that the Magistrate Judge erroneously
determined that because the correctional officers were not
trained when to advise medical staff when an inmate failed to
appear or refused medication, above and beyond placing an
“R” on the medical log, a reasonable juror could
conclude that the County was deliberately indifferent to
Plaintiff’s constitutional rights and caused the
constitutional injury (id. at PageID.605). According
to Defendants, the Magistrate Judge “failed to account
for the role of the Jail’s medical staff, ” who
did not rely upon the correctional officers to report such
information and who would realize that an “R” on
the medical log meant a missed dosage, prompting medical
attention should it be warranted (id. at
PageID.605-606).
Defendants’
argument lacks merit. As Plaintiff points out in response,
“the complete absence of any training whatsoever for
the corrections officers (who are the ones responsible for
dispensing medicine to an inmate) with regard to situations
where an inmate fails to appear to receive his medicine
‘created a circumstance in which the violation of an
inmate’s constitutional rights was simply
inevitable’” (Pl. Resp., ECF No. 72 at
PageID.615, quoting R&R, ECF No. 70 at PageID.594). The
Magistrate Judge properly held that the evidence in the
record was reasonably susceptible to such an inference and
that judgment as a matter of law in the County’s favor
would be inappropriate. This objection is therefore also
properly denied.
Accordingly,
this Court adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation as the Opinion of this Court. Therefore:
IT
IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Objections (ECF No. 71)
are DENIED and the Report and Recommendation of the
Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 70) is APPROVED and ADOPTED as the
Opinion of the Court.
IT
IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for
Summary Judgment (ECF No. 57) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED
IN PART; specifically, Defendants’ motion is granted
except with respect to: (1) Plaintiff’s Eighth
Amendment denial of medical treatment claims against
Defendants Griffith, Delarosa, and Boyer; ...