Click Back Button to Return to Publication
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA, NORFOLK DIVISION
DONALD CORNELIUS JACKSON, Plaintiff,
v.
MS. WILEY, et al., Defendants.
ACTION NO. 2:02cv652
352 F. Supp. 2d 666,
affirmed per curiam, 103 Fed. Appx. 505 (4th Cir. 2004).
February 10, 2004,
Decided
February 10, 2004, Filed
OPINION AND FINAL ORDER
Plaintiff,
a Virginia inmate, brings this pro se action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, to
redress alleged violations of his constitutional rights. Specifically, plaintiff
claims that he was denied adequate medical care, access to prison law
libraries, and religious materials, and was subjected to an abusive strip
search and unconstitutional prison conditions. Plaintiff also contends that his
incoming and outgoing mail was unreasonably restricted and that he was
unreasonably fired from his job as a law clerk. Plaintiff seeks injunctive and
monetary relief.
I. Procedural History
By order filed October 9, 2002, plaintiff's motion to proceed
in forma pauperis was granted. After plaintiff submitted the initial partial
filing fee, his complaint was ordered filed on March 24, 2003.
On April 24, 2003, defendants Thompson and Johns filed a motion to
dismiss. Defendant Wiley filed a motion to dismiss on September 8, 2003.
On September 8, 2003, defendants Tyler and Wilson filed a motion
for summary judgment and a memorandum and affidavits in support thereof.
Defendants Smith, Fowlkes, True, Graham, Fleming, Robinson, Terry, Matthews,
Rogers and Moore also filed a motion for summary judgment and a memorandum and
affidavits in support thereof on September 8, 2003.
In accordance with Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir.
1975), plaintiff was given an opportunity to respond to defendants' motions
with any material that he wished to offer in rebuttal. Plaintiff was instructed
that failure to submit any materials could result in an adverse judgment based
on defendants' motions and, if applicable, accompanying affidavits. Plaintiff
has responded to defendants' motions to dismiss and motions for summary
judgment; therefore, these matters are ready for judicial determination.
II. Facts
A. Medical Care
On July 25, 2001, when plaintiff first arrived at Sussex I State
Prison, Nurse Foster reviewed plaintiff's medical information. She notified
defendant Dr. Charles Wilson ("Wilson"), then employed as the
prison's Medical Director and an institutional physician, that plaintiff was taking
800mg of Motrin, two times per day, to treat his lower back pain. On this date,
Wilson ordered plaintiff a seven (7)-day continuation of 800mg of Motrin. Aff.
Tonya Tyler, L.P.N. P8.
On September 11, 2001, plaintiff complained of low back pain and
reported that he believed he had high blood sugar. The treating nurse scheduled
plaintiff to be seen by the institutional physician and provided plaintiff with
a three (3)-day prescription for 400mg of Motrin. Aff. Tyler P9. n1 Plaintiff's
appointment with Wilson [*671] was delayed because the prison was on a modified
lockdown, in the wake of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Aff. Wilson
P9. n2
On October 4, 2001, plaintiff was again seen by medical staff.
The record shows that plaintiff was worried about his blood sugar level and
desired a renewal of his Motrin prescription. Aff. Tyler P11; see also Aff.
Wilson P10. On October 10, 2001, Wilson visited plaintiff at plaintiff's cell
door and advised plaintiff that he could not arrange a full evaluation of
plaintiff in the medical department, at that time, because the prison was on a
modified lockdown. Aff. Wilson P11; see also Aff. Tyler P11. On the date of
this visit, plaintiff did not appear to be in any acute distress or require
immediate medical attention. Aff. Wilson P11.
On November 5, 2001, plaintiff was evaluated by another prison
nurse. Plaintiff requested that his blood sugar level be tested and complained
of low back pain. The evaluating nurse ordered Motrin for plaintiff and
scheduled an appointment for plaintiff to be seen by Wilson. Plaintiff was
evaluated by Wilson on November 7, 2001. Plaintiff's blood sugar was tested and
determined to be somewhat elevated at 147. Wilson diagnosed plaintiff as having
Type II diabetes and prescribed plaintiff 5 mg of Glucotrol four (4) times per
day for 180 days. Wilson also ordered that plaintiff's blood sugar be checked
two (2) times per day for 180 days, in order to monitor the medication's
effectiveness. Aff. Wilson P13; see also Aff. Tyler P13. n3
Plaintiff was seen by
another medical nurse after complaining of back pain on November 27, 2001.
Plaintiff was ordered a five (5)-day supply of Motrin 200 mg n4 two (2) times
per day and advised to follow-up with the medical department if his condition
changed. n5 Id. at 14.
On December 26, 2001, Wilson briefly examined plaintiff, due to
plaintiff's recurring complaints of low back pain. n6 Wilson determined that
plaintiff's back pain presented a chronic condition, because non-steroidal
anti-inflammatory medication, i.e. Motrin, had not helped plaintiff. Aff. Tyler
P15. Wilson believed plaintiff's ongoing back pain was likely caused by muscle
spasms, which could effectively be treated by a muscle relaxant. Aff. Wilson at
P15. Therefore, Wilson prescribed plaintiff 500 mg of Robaxin two (2) times per
day for seven days and provided plaintiff with a list of back exercises that he
could perform to improve the condition of his back and to alleviate back pain.
Id. On January 10, 2002, Wilson re-ordered an additional seven (7) day
prescription of Robaxin for plaintiff. Id. at P16.
[*672] On January 15, 2002, Wilson formally examined plaintiff
and performed a complete neurological examination of plaintiff to assess
plaintiff's back pain. Aff. Wilson P17. The findings of this exam were within
normal limits; thus, Wilson determined that plaintiff had no significant back
disease or neurological deficits. Because no neurological tests or objective
findings supported plaintiff's ongoing back problem, Wilson determined that
plaintiff neither required the Robaxin or an increased dosage of Motrin. Id.
Also on January 15, 2002, Wilson reviewed plaintiff's blood
sugar levels. Wilson noted that plaintiff's diabetes was
"well-controlled" and continued plaintiff on Glucotrol, to further
maintain plaintiff's blood sugar levels. Id. P19.
Plaintiff was transferred to Nottoway Correctional Center on
June 26, 2002. Aff. Wilson P22.
B. Library Access
1. Nottoway Correctional Center
Plaintiff submitted informal requests to attend the Law Library
on May 24, May 29, and June 7, 2001. Aff. L. Kelly P9. Plaintiff also submitted
requests on May 16, June 12, June 18, and June 25, 2001. "Plaintiff's
Response Opposing to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss" ("Pl.'s Resp.
Br.") P19. n7 Plaintiff was informed that his name would be added to the
library attendance list in the order that requests were received from inmates.
Plaintiff was granted access to the law library from June 11, 2001 through June
16, 2001, and plaintiff attended the library each day. Aff. L. Kelly P9. n8
Plaintiff submitted another request for library time on July 10,
2001. A response to plaintiff's request informed him that he could attend from
July 23 through July 28, 2001; however, plaintiff was added to the library list
from July 9 to July 14, 2001 and July 18, 2001. Plaintiff attended the library
all seven (7) days. Id. at P10. n9 Plaintiff was also placed on the law library
list for July 23 through July 28, 2001; however, plaintiff only attended the
law library on July 23 and July 24, 2001. Id.
Plaintiff was transferred to Sussex I State Prison on July 25,
2001, making him unable to attend the Nottoway Correctional Center law library
after those dates. Aff. Kelly P11.
2. Sussex I State Prison
Plaintiff arrived at Sussex I State Prison on July 25, 2001. On
July 27, 2001, plaintiff submitted an informal complaint requesting to attend
the law library. Plaintiff was granted library access on July 31, 2001, from
12:30 p.m. to 3:45 p.m. and on August 1, 2001 from 2:00 p.m. to 3:45 p.m. Aff.
P. True PP4 and 6.
Plaintiff submitted another informal request for library access
on August 5, 2001, complaining that he had not been given enough library time
to complete his legal work. Plaintiff was sent a response indicating that he
would be sent to the library within the week. Id. P5.
On August 9, 2001, plaintiff submitted an informal request to
defendant Page True ("True") requesting additional library time and
complaining that he had only been given one hour in the library, which was too
short to re-type his documents. [*673] In his response to plaintiff, True
advised plaintiff that courts do not mandate that documents be typewritten, and
inmates are not permitted access to the law library for typing purposes, access
was for library research. Id. P6.
Plaintiff had access to the law library for one (1) to three (3)
hours per day for the following days: August 10, August 24, August 31,
September 7, October 5, and October 12, 2001. Aff. True P7. n10
On June 19, 2002, plaintiff filed a complaint concerning access
to the law library and his inability to gain access because the prison was on
lockdown. The response to his complaint informed plaintiff that the library had
been closed, because all prison programs had been temporarily suspended, due to
a quarterly lockdown that began on June 17, 2002. Pl.'s Resp. Br. P98. n11
Plaintiff was transferred back to Nottoway Correctional Center
on June 26, 2002.
3. Nottoway Correctional Center
On June 26, 2002, when plaintiff was transferred to Nottoway
Correctional Center, he submitted an informal request asking for access to the
law library. Plaintiff was informed that his name would be posted on the Master
Pass List for a scheduled date to attend the law library. Aff. J. Terry P4.
Plaintiff also submitted additional informal requests from library time on the
following days: July 3, 2002, August 22, 2002, and September 6, 2002. Each
time, plaintiff was told that his name would be added to the Master Pass List.
Id. PP5-7.
Plaintiff was granted access and attended the prison library for
three (3) to five (5) hours on each of the following dates: July 12, July 13, July
22, July 23, September 9, September 13, September 16, October 23, and October
24, 2002. Id. P8.
C. Strip Search
The
undisputed record shows that as part of the prison intake process, when
plaintiff was first transferred to Sussex I State Prison, he was directed by
defendant Officer Smith ("Smith") to strip out of his clothes during
a routine search. Two female nurses were present when plaintiff was stripped
and searched, having already been present in the room in order to perform a routine
medical examination of plaintiff. Pl.'s Compl. p. 15.
D. Firing from Legal Clerk
Job
Plaintiff was hired as a law clerk in Nottoway Correctional
Center's library. Prior to his hiring, plaintiff was warned not to use the law
library computer or discs for his personal use. It is undisputed that, on July
31, 2002, plaintiff was discovered saving documents regarding his personal
legal cases on a library computer's hard drive; thus, plaintiff was fired for
his misuse of the computer. Pl.'s Am. Compl. P21; Pl.'s Resp. Br. PP106-09; see
also Aff. Terry P9.
III. Legal Standards
A. Motion to Dismiss
Standard
In construing a motion to dismiss, the facts alleged in
plaintiff's pro se complaint must be taken as true. Loe v. Armistead, 582 F.2d
1291, 1292 (4th Cir. 1978). A pro se complaint, no matter how unartfully
pleaded, must survive a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to
state a claim "unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove
no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to
relief." Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 521, 30 L. Ed. 2d 652, 92 S. Ct.
594 (1972) (per curiam). A pro se
complaint involving civil rights issues should [*674] be liberally construed. Gordon
v. Leeke, 574 F.2d 1147, 1151 (4th Cir. 1978). Dismissal may be appropriate
where the complaint contains a detailed description of underlying facts which
fail to state a viable claim. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106-09, 50 L. Ed.
2d 251, 97 S. Ct. 285 (1976). However, where the complaint is broad, dismissal
for failure to state a claim is improper. Bolding v. Holshouser, 575 F.2d 461
(4th Cir. 1978). Finally, where a pro se complaint contains a potentially
cognizable claim, plaintiff should be allowed to particularize the claim.
Coleman v. Peyton, 340 F.2d 603, 604 (4th Cir. 1965).
B. Summary Judgment Standard
Summary judgment under Rule 56 is appropriate only when the
court, viewing the record as a whole and in the light most favorable to the
nonmoving party, determines that there exists no genuine issue of material fact
and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See,
e.g., Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-24, 91 L. Ed. 2d 265, 106 S.
Ct. 2548 (1986) ; Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248-50, 91 L.
Ed. 2d 202, 106 S. Ct. 2505 (1986); Terry's Floor Fashions v. Burlington
Indus., 763 F.2d 604, 610 (4th Cir. 1985).
Once a party has properly filed evidence supporting the motion for
summary judgment, the nonmoving party may not rest upon mere allegations in the
pleadings, but must instead set forth specific facts illustrating genuine
issues for trial. Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 322-24. Such facts must be
presented in the form of exhibits and sworn affidavits. Failure by plaintiff to
rebut defendants' motion with such evidence on his behalf will result in
summary judgment when appropriate. "The plain language of Rule 56(c)
mandates the entry of summary judgment . . . against a party who fails to make
a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that
party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at
trial." Id. at 322.
A mere scintilla of evidence is not sufficient to withstand a
motion for summary judgment. Rather, the evidence must be such that the
fact-finder reasonably could find for the nonmoving party. See Anderson v.
Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 252, 91 L. Ed. 2d 202, 106 S. Ct. 2505
(1986). Although the court must draw all justifiable inferences in favor of the
nonmoving party, in order to successfully defeat a motion for summary judgment,
a nonmoving party cannot rely on "mere belief or conjecture, or the
allegations and denials contained in his pleadings." Doyle v. Sentry Ins.,
877 F. Supp. 1002, 1005 (E.D. Va. 1995) (citing Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324).
IV. Analysis of Plaintiff's Claims
Because plaintiff has failed to meet his burdens required under
a motion to dismiss or his burdens required under a motion for summary
judgment, the court GRANTS defendants' motions to dismiss and motions for
summary judgment.
A. Eighth Amendment Claims
1. Eighth Amendment Standard
a. Generally
To prove a violation of the Eighth Amendment, made applicable to
the States by the Fourteenth Amendment, a prisoner must prove the following
two elements:
(1) that objectively the deprivation of a basic human need was
"sufficiently serious," and
(2) that subjectively the prison officials acted with a
"sufficiently culpable state of mind." Johnson v. Quinones, 145 F.3d
164, 167 (4th Cir. 1998); see also Williams v. Griffin, 952 F.2d 820, 824 (4th
Cir. 1991). An inmate must produce evidence of a [*675] serious or significant
physical or emotional injury resulting from the challenged conditions.
Strickler v. Waters, 989 F.2d 1375, 1380-81 (4th Cir. 1993). Additionally, it
must be shown that prison officials knew of and disregarded the excessive risk
to inmate health or safety. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837, 128 L. Ed. 2d
811, 114 S. Ct. 1970 (1994).
The first prong, which is an objective inquiry, asks whether the
deprivation alleged is "sufficiently serious." Farmer, 511 U.S. at
834; Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 298, 115 L. Ed. 2d 271, 111 S. Ct. 2321
(1991). The inmate must be denied "the minimal civilized measure of life's
necessities," Wilson, 501 U.S. at 298, and the deprivation must violate
contemporary notions of decency. Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 69 L. Ed. 2d
59, 101 S. Ct. 2392 (1981) (permitting some conditions that may be restrictive
and even harsh as part of the penalty that criminal defendants must pay for
their offenses against society).
The second prong, a subjective inquiry, requires the inmate to
demonstrate that the prison officials acted at least with deliberate
indifference toward his or her needs. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834; Wilson, 501 U.S.
at 302-03. This subjective prong requires more than negligent conduct;
deliberate indifference exists when a prison official "knows of and
disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or safety." Farmer, 511 U.S.
at 835-37 (establishing a subjective recklessness standard for prison-condition
cases); see also Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 319, 89 L. Ed. 2d 251, 106 S.
Ct. 1078 (1986). Additionally, plaintiff must produce evidence of a serious or
significant physical or emotional injury resulting from the challenged cruel
and unusual prison conditions. Strickler, 989 F.2d at 1380-81.
Furthermore, a prison
inmate may not bring a federal civil action for a mental or emotional injury
suffered while in custody without a prior showing of a physical injury. 42
U.S.C. § 1997e(e).
b. Inadequate Medical Attention
The standard for inadequate medical attention is deliberate
indifference to a serious medical need of a prisoner. See Estelle v. Gamble,
429 U.S. 97, 104-05, 50 L. Ed. 2d 251, 97 S. Ct. 285 (1976). A
"serious" medical need exists when failure to treat a prisoner's
serious condition will result in significant injury or "unnecessary and
wanton infliction of pain." Id. Prison officials are considered to have
acted with deliberate indifference if they know of and disregard an excessive
risk to an inmate's health or safety. See Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837.
Specifically, "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. This indifference can be manifested by
prison guards who intentionally deny or delay access to medical care or by
prison doctors in their response, or lack thereof, to a prisoner's needs.
Estelle, 429 U.S. at 104.
Furthermore, mere disagreements between an inmate and a
physician concerning the proper medical care required of an inmate do not
constitute a claim under § 1983, unless exceptional circumstances are alleged.
See Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 849 (4th Cir. 1985) (citing Gittlemacker
v. Prasse, 428 F.2d 1 (3d Cir. 1970)).
2. Analysis
a. Claims Against Defendant Johns
Dr. Sonja Johns ("Johns"), a physician at Deep Meadow
Correctional Center, [*676]argues in her motion to dismiss, that because
plaintiff raised no allegations against her, plaintiff has failed to state a
claim. In neither plaintiff's original nor amended complaint does plaintiff
present any claims against defendant. The only mention of Johns, other than to
explain that she was a physician at Deep Meadows Correctional Center, is in
plaintiff's response to defendants' motion to dismiss, filed May 14, 2003.
Plaintiff provided a notarized affidavit certifying under oath that all the
facts in his response to defendants' motion to dismiss were true and correct,
and plaintiff's response was submitted before any defendants had filed answers
to plaintiff's complaint.
Under Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
plaintiff may amend his pleading "once as a matter of course at any time
before a responsive pleading is served." Once a responsive pleading is
served, however, a party may amend "only by leave of court or by written
consent of the adverse party." Rule 15(a). Rule 7(a) lists those
submissions that are considered responsive pleadings, n12 the most common of
which is the answer. Under Rule 7, motions are not considered responsive
pleadings. See Smith v. Blackledge, 451 F.2d 1201, 1203 n.2 (4th Cir. 1971)
(holding a motion to dismiss is not a responsive pleading); Clardy v. Duke
Univ., 299 F.2d 368, 369 (4th Cir. 1962) (holding a motion for summary judgment
is not a responsive pleading); Manning v. Greensville Mem. Hosp., 470 F. Supp.
662, 671-72 (E.D. Va. 1979).
Although no defendants filed responsive pleadings before
plaintiff filed his response with claims against Johns, on January 27, 2003, plaintiff
had previously asked the court for permission to amend his complaint. By order
filed February 6, 2003, the court granted plaintiff's motion to amend his
complaint and add new parties and claims. Although plaintiff has already
"once as a matter of course" filed an amended complaint, the court
has a duty to be solicitous when handling pro se civil rights actions. Gordon
v. Leeke, 574 F.2d 1148, 1152-53 (4th Cir. 1978). Accordingly, the court shall
review plaintiff's response to determine whether he has presented cognizable
claims against Johns and should be granted leave to amend his complaint.
Plaintiff's May 14, 2003, response asserts that Johns should
have known that plaintiff suffered from low back pain and diabetes because this
information had been provided in plaintiff's medical record, which accompanied
him when he was first incarcerated at Deep Meadow Correctional Center on May
16, 2001. "Pl.'s Resp. Opposing to the Def.'s Mot. to Dismiss", p.
11. Plaintiff claims that Johns' routine testing of his blood sugar
demonstrated that Johns knew plaintiff had diabetes. Plaintiff alleges that
despite Johns knowledge that plaintiff suffered from diabetes and low back
pain, Johns failed to note such in plaintiff's medical record; therefore, the
physicians at Sussex I State Prison were unaware of the treatment plaintiff
required when he was transferred from Deep Meadow Correctional Center to Sussex
I State Prison. Id. Plaintiff does not allege that Johns denied him adequate
medical care or otherwise violated his constitutional rights. Furthermore,
plaintiff does not assert that he suffered any serious injury as a result of
Johns' actions. Because plaintiff has not claimed a serious or significant
physical injury resulting [*677] from defendants' actions, the court finds that
plaintiff has failed to allege an Eighth Amendment violation that would entitle
him relief.
Because plaintiff has still made no cognizable claims against
Johns in his May 14, 2003, response, the court shall not grant plaintiff leave
to amend his complaint.
b. Claims Against Defendant Thompson
In plaintiff's amended complaint filed January 27, 2003,
plaintiff alleges that defendant L. Thompson ("Thompson") failed to
"follow[] the proper standard medical procedure that's require[sic] by the
medical policy." Pl.'s Am. Compl. P54. Plaintiff does not explain or
allege how defendant Thompson violated his constitutional rights, nor does
plaintiff allege that Thompson denied him medical treatment or was deliberately
indifferent to his serious medical needs. The only other mention of Thompson in
plaintiff's complaint is that Thompson questioned plaintiff about his health
condition. Pl.'s Compl. P60. In plaintiff's response brief, plaintiff has a
section entitled "Plaintiff's Claim Against Dr. L. Thompson;"
however, plaintiff makes no allegations in this section against defendant
Thompson. Instead, plaintiff only alleges that he filed numerous complaints in
order to determine the identity of the doctor who diagnosed him with high blood
pressure. Plaintiff does not allege that Thompson in any manner violated
plaintiff's constitutional rights. Accordingly, plaintiff has failed to state a
cognizable § 1983 claim against defendant Thompson.
c. Claims Against Defendant Wiley
In his complaint, plaintiff alleges that Wiley "was already
up-set[sic] for being late for
work" and directed Sergeant Porter to place plaintiff in the "Sick
Housing Unit" ("SHU") because plaintiff was unable to walk.
Pl.'s Compl. PP14-15. Plaintiff contends that Sergeant Porter put him in Cell #
10, which was dirty and did not have running water. When plaintiff complained
of the cell's condition, Sergeant Porter informed plaintiff that he would place
a work order to have plaintiff's water fixed. Id. at P15. Plaintiff does not
allege that Wiley was responsible for placing plaintiff in the cell nor does he
allege that Wiley caused plaintiff any injury.
Even after construing the facts of plaintiff's complaint as
true, plaintiff has failed to state a claim against Wiley. Defendant Wiley's
act of directing Sergeant Porter to place plaintiff in the SHU because
plaintiff was unable to walk does not constitute a constitutional violation.
Assuming arguendo that plaintiff alleged Wiley was responsible for placing
plaintiff in the dirty cell without running water, such action would not rise
to the level of a constitutional violation. Plaintiff does not allege that he
suffered any harm from being placed in the allegedly dirty SHU cell. Because
plaintiff has not claimed a serious or significant physical injury resulting
from defendants' actions, the court finds that plaintiff has failed to allege
an Eighth Amendment violation that would entitle him to monetary relief. At
most, he would be entitled to injunctive relief. A prisoner may obtain injunctive relief "to prevent a
substantial risk of serious injury from ripening into actual harm" if the
prisoner is able to establish that the prison personnel were, and are
continuing, to "knowingly and unreasonably disregard[] an objectively
intolerable risk of harm." Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 845-46, 128 L.
Ed. 2d 811, 114 S. Ct. 1970 (1994). Here, however, the court finds that
injunctive relief is not an appropriate remedy. The appropriate injunctive
remedy for holding plaintiff in an allegedly dirty cell would be to release
plaintiff; plaintiff has already been released. Because plaintiff is no longer
confined in segregation, any claims for injunctive relief are MOOT.
[*678] d. Claims Against Defendant Tyler
Plaintiff sues defendant Ms. T. Tyler ("Tyler") in her
capacity as the medical administrator of Sussex I State Prison and for the
manner in which she handled plaintiff's grievances. Plaintiff alleges that he
submitted a request to Tyler for a copy of his medical record. Plaintiff claims
that he received a response indicating that his request was not filled out
properly. Pl.'s Compl. p. 27. Additionally, plaintiff contends that he filed
complaints against the prison's medical department with Tyler. Id. at p. 28.
n13 Plaintiff does not claim that Tyler, as the medical administrator, was
either personally involved in denying him adequate medical care or personally
responsible for a policy that denied him adequate medical care; he merely
alleges Tyler was responsible because she supervised the prison's medical
department. Section 1983 liability is
personal in nature. The doctrine of respondeat superior does not apply to hold
an employer or supervisor liable for the acts of his employee. See Monell v.
Dep't of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 694, 56 L. Ed. 2d 611, 98 S. Ct. 2018
(1978); Vinnedge v. Gibbs, 550 F.2d 926, 928 (4th Cir. 1977). Because plaintiff
does not allege that Tyler was personally involved in a wrongful act or that an
alleged wrongful act occurred pursuant to some official policy or custom for
which she was responsible, Tyler cannot be held liable for the alleged denial
of adequate medical care to plaintiff. Fisher v. Washington Metro. Area Transit
Auth., 690 F.2d 1133, 1142-43 (4th Cir. 1982); see also Monell, 436 U.S. at
664; Vinnedge, 550 F.2d at 928.
e. Claims Against Defendant Moore
Plaintiff alleges that defendant Dr. Moore ("Moore"),
assistant warden of Sussex I State Prison, told plaintiff that he would be
interviewed by a nurse and placed on a wait list to see a doctor, after
plaintiff had requested a visit with an institutional doctor rather than a
nurse. Plaintiff makes no other allegations against Moore. Plaintiff does not
allege that Moore, who is not a medical doctor, knew of or disregarded plaintiff's
serious medical needs. Instead plaintiff explains that Moore informed him that
he would be placed on the waiting list to be seen by a doctor. The undisputed
record shows the standard protocol of Sussex I State Prison requires that an
inmate requesting non-emergency medical care be seen initially by a prison
nurse, prior to being scheduled for an examination by the institutional
physician. In attempting to obtain medical care for plaintiff, Moore followed
standard protocol and scheduled an appointment for plaintiff with a nurse and
prison doctor. Assuming arguendo that plaintiff had serious medical needs, no
evidence in the record shows Moore was deliberately indifferent to plaintiff's
serious medical needs.
f. Claims Against Defendant Wilson
Plaintiff claims that defendant Wilson failed to provide him
adequate medical care, because Wilson failed to treat plaintiff's diabetic
condition and back pain. Assuming arguendo that plaintiff had serious medical
needs, no evidence in the record demonstrates that Wilson was deliberately
indifferent to these needs. On the contrary, the record shows that Wilson
provided plaintiff with extensive medical care and attention, in efforts to
address plaintiff's medical needs. After diagnosing plaintiff with Type II
diabetes, n14 Wilson [*679] prescribed Glucotrol for plaintiff to treat
plaintiff's condition. Wilson also ordered that plaintiff's blood sugar be
checked two (2) times per day for 180 days, to monitor the medication's
effectiveness. Even after determining that plaintiff's diabetic condition was
"well-controlled," Wilson continued plaintiff on Glucotrol to
maintain his condition. In efforts to treat plaintiff's back pain, Wilson
initially prescribed increased dosages of Motrin to plaintiff. Wilson later
decreased plaintiff's Motrin dosage to prevent plaintiff from developing a
gastric ulcer. After Wilson realized that the Motrin was failing to relieve
plaintiff's alleged back pain, he prescribed Robaxin, a muscle relaxant, to
plaintiff and provided plaintiff with a list of exercises that he could perform
to improve the condition of his back and to alleviate back pain. Later, Wilson
performed a complete neurological exam of plaintiff, to determine the cause of plaintiff's recurrent
complaints of back pain.
At most, plaintiff appears to disagree with Wilson's method in
treating plaintiff's medical conditions. Plaintiff complains that Wilson
discontinued plaintiff's prescription for the increased dosage of Motrin. Plaintiff
also expresses dissatisfaction with Wilson's treatment for his diabetes.
Plaintiff fails to allege any exceptional circumstances that would satisfy the
standard for deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs; and
therefore, the court determines that plaintiff has merely presented a
disagreement in medical care, which does not constitute a claim under § 1983.
See Wright, 766 F.2d at 849.
3. Conclusion
For the aforementioned reasons, the court determines that
plaintiff has failed to state a cognizable § 1983 claim against defendants
Thompson, Johns, and Wiley. Accordingly, the court hereby GRANTS defendants'
motions to dismiss. Additionally, the court finds that no evidence in the
record could reasonably allow a fact-finder to conclude that plaintiff's Eighth
Amendment rights have been violated.
B. Sixth Amendment Claims:
Denied Access to Institutional Law Libraries
1. Sixth Amendment Standard
Although prisoners maintain a right of access to the courts,
they do not have the right of access to a law library. See Strickler, 989 F.2d
at 1385 (citing Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 52 L. Ed. 2d 72, 97 S. Ct. 1491
(1977)). A prisoner has not been denied his right of access to the courts
simply because an institution's library is inadequate or because a prisoner's
access to that library has been restricted in some way. See id. The right to
access the court "does not guarantee [prisoners] the wherewithal to
transform themselves into litigating engines capable of filing everything from
shareholder derivative actions to slip-and-fall claims." Lewis v. Casey,
518 U.S. 343, 135 L. Ed. 2d 606, 116 S. Ct. 2174, 2182 (1996). Furthermore, an
actual injury is required to state a claim for denial of access to the courts.
See id. at 2181. It is a basic requirement that the prisoner asserting the
claim show specific harm or prejudice from the allegedly denied access. See
Strickler, 989 F.2d at 1384; see also Inmates v. Owens, 561 F.2d 560, 562-63
(4th Cir. 1977). The injury requirement is not satisfied by just any type of
frustrated legal claim; the prisoner
must demonstrate that his nonfrivolous, post-conviction or civil rights legal
claim has been frustrated [*680] or impeded. See Lewis, 518 U.S. at 2181. Where
a prisoner "has been accorded his right of access to the courts, [the
courts] are simply without authority to adjudicate an abstract complaint about
the library's adequacy or [the prisoner's] access to the library."
Strickler, 989 F.2d at 1385.
Access to a prison's law library may be restricted during prison
lockdown where inmates have access to other forms of legal advice. See Johnson
v. Williams, 768 F. Supp. 1161 (E.D. Va. 1991).
2. Analysis
Plaintiff alleges he missed court filing deadlines because he
was denied adequate access to prison law libraries. Plaintiff also complains
that he had no access to the library when the prison was on lockdown status.
The record presents no evidence that plaintiff was denied access
to the any prison law libraries. Instead, undisputed evidence demonstrates that
plaintiff had several visits to the law libraries in both Sussex I State Prison
and Nottoway Correctional Center, often lasting several hours. Additionally,
Nottoway Correctional Center has a court appointed attorney to assist inmates.
Pl.'s Resp. Br. p. 35. Plaintiff received legal assistance from the
institutional attorney. See e.g., Pl.'s Am. Complaint P37. The only time
plaintiff was denied library access was when the law library at Nottoway
Correctional Center was closed because the prison had been placed on lockdown.
Pl.'s Resp. Br. P98. There is no indication that plaintiff could not contact
the prison's institutional attorney for legal assistance while the prison was
on lockdown. See Johnson, 768 F. Supp. 1161 (holding that access to a prison
law library may be restricted during lockdown as long as inmates have access to
legal advice).
Plaintiff also claims that defendant Ms. J. Terry
("Terry"), the law librarian at Nottoway Correctional Center,
violated his constitutional rights, because she failed to provide him legal
assistance when he was visiting the library. Pl.'s Resp. Br. p. 35. States have a duty to provide inmates with
either an attorney or access to law libraries to prepare for trial. Bounds, 430
U.S. 817, 52 L. Ed. 2d 72, 97 S. Ct. 1491 (1976). States need not provide both
law libraries and advisors. Smith, 813 F.2d at 1203 ("either remedy, law
libraries or attorney assistance, could fulfill the constitutional right of
access [to the courts]"); Williams, 584 F.2d 1336. The evidence shows that
plaintiff had extensive time in the law library. Additionally, plaintiff admits
that the prison had a court appointed attorney to assist inmates, who visited
plaintiff. Pl.'s Am. Compl. P37.
3. Conclusion
No evidence in the record supports plaintiff's allegation that
plaintiff was unconstitutionally denied access to law libraries. Therefore,
plaintiff has not established how he has been denied his constitutional right
of access to the courts. n15
C. Fourth Amendment: Privacy in Genitalia
1. Fourth Amendment Standard
In Lee v. Downs, 641 F. 2d
1117 (4th Cir. 1981), the Fourth Circuit affirmed the [*681] district court's
decision that although a prisoner surrenders some rights of privacy, all privacy
rights are not extinguished. The court held that involuntary exposure of a
female prisoner's genitalia to male guards violated the special right of
privacy the inmate had in her genitalia. Courts have also found a violation of
a prisoner's special right to privacy in instances where male guards were
stationed in rooms with female prisoners who were required to undress for
medical examinations. See e.g., Lee, 641 F. 2d at 1120 (citing Forts v. Ward,
471 F. Supp. 1095 (S.D.N.Y. 1979)) (finding that the presence of male guards
unnecessary where female prisoner undressed for a medical examination).
Although,
most courts have condemned strip searches conducted by prison personnel of the
opposite sex, except in the most extreme of circumstances, courts do not find
strip searches conducted by medical personnel of the opposite sex as similarly
reprehensible. In Skurstenis v. Jones, 236 F.3d 678, 683-84 (11th Cir. 2000),
the Eleventh Circuit examined whether strip searches performed on prison
inmates by medical personnel of the opposite sex were constitutional, realizing
that there had been no discussion amongst the Circuits as to such. Id.
Discussion of strip searches performed by medical personnel has merely been to
purport that body cavity and rectal searches should be performed by medical,
not jail, personnel; "the sex of a medical person conducting the search is
either not identified or is mentioned only for informational purposes."
Id. (citing Torres v. Wisconsin Dept. of Health and Soc. Servs., 859 F.2d 1523
(7th Cir. 1988) (en banc); Bonitz v. Fair, 804 F.2d 164 (1st Cir. 1986);
Daughtery v. Harris, 476 F.2d 292, (10th Cir. 1973); Tribble v. Gardner, 860
F.2d 321 (9th Cir. 1988); Hurley v. Ward, 584 F.2d 609 (2d Cir. 1978)); see
also Snider v. Hughes, 1995 U.S. App. Lexis 15846 (4th Cir. June 27, 1995).
In
Skurstenis, the court held that it was not inappropriate for medical personnel
to conduct strip searches on inmates of the opposite sex, and such action does
not violate inmates' constitutional rights. Skurstenis, 236 F.3d at 684.
Although other courts have not directly addressed the issue of whether strip
searches, including rectal searches, performed on inmates by medical personnel of the opposite sex are
constitutional, courts have found no privacy issue in cases where such searches
are performed on inmates by medical personnel of the opposite sex. See e.g.,
Laughter v. Kay, 986 F. Supp. 1362 (D. Utah 1997) (describing that a male physician performed a rectal search on a
female inmate, but not raising an issue as to whether the inmate's right to
privacy had been violated).
The dearth
of cases on the issue of whether medical personnel may perform strip searches
on inmates of the opposite sex and the fact that when these types of searches
are performed no such issue is raised suggests that strip searches conducted on
inmates by medical personnel of the opposite sex do not violate prisoners'
constitutional rights.
2. Analysis
Plaintiff alleges that Smith
violated his constitutional right to privacy when he performed a routine strip
search, during prison intake, and ordered plaintiff to strip in the presence of
two qualified female nurses. Pl.'s Compl. PP9-10, p. 15. Plaintiff asserts that
the female nurses entered the intake area, prior to the search, in order to
perform a standard medical examination of plaintiff. Id. P3, p. 14. Plaintiff
also claims that he was made to squat and cough before the nurses. Id. P10, p.
16. Plaintiff contends that he informed Smith that the two female nurses were
present, to which Smith responded [*682]"its[sic] nothing that they never
seen." Pl. 's Resp. Br. p. 28.
Although
courts have found that involuntary exposure of a female prisoner's genitalia to
male guards violated the special right of a prisoner's privacy in her
genitalia, here, plaintiff merely alleges that Smith made him strip and a
rectal search was performed on him, while in presence of two qualified female
nurses. Plaintiff does not allege that female guards or other female prison
personnel were present. Generally,
rectal searches are distinguished from regular strip searches and are required
to be conducted by trained medical professionals. See e.g., Daughtery, 476 F.2d
292 (upholding rectal searches performed by "paraprofessional medical
assistants" and forbidding such searches by ordinary prison personnel);
see also Tribble, 860 F.2d 321; Snider, 1995 U.S. App. Lexis 15846. Therefore,
the presence of nurses during a routine anal search is common, if not
necessary. Male and female medical professionals customarily examine
individuals of the opposite sex, and such behavior has not been found to
constitute a constitutional violation. Plaintiff does not allege that he
notified the nurses or Smith that he did not want to be examined by or searched
in the presence of female nurses. Moreover, plaintiff explains, "The
plaintiff wasn't about to refuse Officer Smith[sic] demand." If plaintiff
had a special sensitivity to being examined by qualified female nurses, it was
his duty to notify Smith or the female nurses. Because the presence of trained
medical personnel of the opposite sex during a reasonable routine strip and
anal search of an inmate is not constitutionally inappropriate, Smith's actions
could not violate plaintiff's constitutional rights.
3. Conclusion
For the
aforementioned reasons, the court determines that plaintiff has failed to state
a cognizable constitutional claim against Smith. There is no evidence that
plaintiff's special right to privacy in his genitalia has been violated.
D. Grievance Claims
1. Standard
A prisoner does not have a constitutionally protected right to
"grievance procedures or access to any grievance procedure voluntarily
established by a state." Adams v. Rice, 40 F.3d 72, 75 (4th Cir. 1994).
2. Analysis
The court determines that dismissal of plaintiff's complaint
with regard to defendants Ms. D. Graham ("Graham"), Ms. N. Matthews
("Matthews"), Ms. K. Fowlkes ("Fowlkes"), and Mr. Rufus
Fleming ("Fleming"), in addition to claims concerning the handling of
plaintiff's grievances by defendants True and Tyler, is appropriate because
plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Plaintiff
only alleges that defendants Graham, Matthews, Fowlkes, and Fleming violated
his constitutional rights in their manner of handling his grievances. Plaintiff
further contends that Matthews violated his constitutional rights and hindered
his ability to proceed through the grievance process, because she rejected
plaintiff's complaints that did not adhere to the rules for filing inmate
grievances. Pl.'s Am. Complaint P49. Plaintiff was dissatisfied with the manner
in which these defendants handled his complaints, including being dissatisfied
with their determinations that his grievances were "unfounded." Eg.,
Pl.'s Compl. and Pl.'s Resp. Br. (referring to defendant True).
Because plaintiff has no right of access to any grievance
procedures, even assuming that defendants did not answer plaintiff's grievances
in a "timely manner" or [*683] plaintiff's ability to proceed through
the grievance process was delayed, defendants' actions would not establish
constitutional violations. Plaintiff's complaint regarding these defendants
simply does not rise to a level of constitutional significance.
3. Conclusion
With regard to plaintiff's complaints that defendants did not
handle his grievances appropriately plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted.
E. Miscellaneous Claims
The only remaining claim against defendant Terry is an
allegation that plaintiff's constitutional rights were violated because Terry
fired plaintiff from his job after plaintiff misused the law library's
equipment and resources for his own personal use, even though plaintiff was forewarned
that such use was prohibited. Prisoners
do not have a constitutional right to work assignments. See Gaston v. Taylor,
946 F.2d 340 (4th Cir. 1991) (en banc). Accordingly, plaintiff has failed to
state a claim against Terry.
Plaintiff has made a variety of other claims, including the
following: (1) his daughter did not receive the M&M candies he mailed her;
(2) there was before respondents received mail that plaintiff sent from the
prison; (3) plaintiff was restricted
from possessing some of his personal property items because they were
unauthorized at the prison; (4) the prison's commissary failed to sell "personal name brand
hygiene products"; (5) prisoners were provided inadequate winter clothing;
(6) prison lights were not completely turned off at night; (7) plaintiff was
unable to attend religious services of Jumu'ah because his name was still on a
waiting list to attend such services; and (8) plaintiff did not receive
requested religious materials. Plaintiff only raises these claims in regard to
defendants who allegedly did not address his grievances. As discussed, a
prisoner does not have a constitutionally protected right to grievance
procedures.
F. Claims that Defendants
are Responsible for their Subordinates
Plaintiff only sues defendants Mr David Robinson
("Robinson") and Mr. W.P. Rogers ("Rogers") for their
supervision of other defendants. Plaintiff's claims against Moore and True
include allegations that these defendants violated plaintiff's constitutional
rights because they supervised prison employees, including other defendants.
Because there is no evidence that plaintiff's constitutional rights have been
violated, there are no constitutional violations for which these defendants
could be held responsible. Furthermore, § 1983 liability is personal in nature.
The doctrine of respondeat superior does not apply to hold an employer or
supervisor liable for the acts of his employee. See Monell, 436 U.S. at 694;
Vinnedge, 550 F.2d at 928.
V. Conclusion
For the aforementioned reasons, plaintiff has failed to state a
claim upon which relief could be granted against defendants Thompson, Johns,
and Wiley. Therefore, the motion to dismiss filed by defendants Thompson and
Johns is GRANTED and the motion to dismiss filed by defendant Wiley is GRANTED.
Additionally, for the aforementioned reasons, the court GRANTS the motion for
summary judgment filed by defendants Tyler and Wilson and the motion for
summary judgment filed by defendants Smith, Fowlkes, True, Graham, Fleming,
Robinson, Terry, Matthews, Rogers, and Moore. Accordingly, this action is
DISMISSED.
Plaintiff is ADVISED that he may appeal from this final order by
forwarding a written notice of appeal to the Clerk of the [*684] United States
District Court, United States Courthouse, 600 Granby Street, Norfolk, Virginia
23510. Said written notice must be received by the Clerk within thirty (30)
days from the date of this order. If plaintiff wishes to proceed in forma
pauperis on appeal, the application to proceed in forma pauperis is to be
submitted to the Clerk, United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit, 1100 E.
Main Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219.
The Clerk is DIRECTED to send a copy of this opinion and final
order to plaintiff, at his new address in Keen Mountain Correctional Center,
and to counsel for defendants.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
JEROME B. FRIEDMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Norfolk, Virginia
February 10, 2004
JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE - FILED FEB 11 2004
Decision by the Court. This action
came for decision before the Court. The issues have been considered and a
decision has been rendered.
IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the motion to dismiss filed by
defendants Thompson and Johns is GRANTED; that the motion to dismiss filed by
defendant Wiley is GRANTED; that the motion for summary judgment filed by
defendants Tyler and Wilson, and the motion for summary judgment filed by
defendants Smith, Fowlkes, True, Graham, Fleming, Robinson, Terry, Matthews,
Rogers, and Moore is GRANTED; and this action is DISMISSED.
DATED: February 10, 2004
FOOTNOTES:
n1 Standard protocol at
Sussex I State Prison requires that an inmate requesting non-emergency medical
care be seen initially by a prison nurse, before being scheduled for an
examination by the institutional physician. Aff. Charles Wilson, M.D. P6; see
also Aff. Tyler P7.
n2 Defendant Tyler explains
that neither she nor any other medical staff member has control over security
issues at the prison, such as a security
lockdown. Id. P22.
n3 In his original
complaint, plaintiff alleged that he was not placed on a restrictive diabetic
diet; however, plaintiff's medical records indicate that he had been provided
such.
n4 Wilson did not continue
plaintiff on the higher 400 mg dosage of Motrin because of the increased risk of gastric bleeding. Wilson founded
his decision on medical statistics, which show one-fourth of all gastric ulcers
are caused by the use of Motrin.
n5 Wilson explains that
standard nursing protocol allows an inmate to receive pain medication, such as
Motrin, directly from nursing staff. Therefore, it is not necessary for an
inmate to be seen directly by a the institutional physician for such. Aff.
Wilson P14.
n6 Wilson noted that he
could not formally examine plaintiff on this date, because the prison was on
lockdown.
n7 See also, accompanying
Exhibits 2 & 3.
n8 See also copy of the Law
Library List and Law Library Sign-In Sheet, Aff. Kelly, Enclosures with regard
to all dates plaintiff attended the Law Library.
n9 Plaintiff, however,
contends that someone forged his signature on the July 14, 2001, Law Library
Sign-In Sheet. Pl's Resp. Br. P20.
n10 See also Law Library
Schedules accompanying Affidavit of P. True.
n11 See also id. Ex. 47
(inmate grievance form).
n12 Rule 7(a) reads as
follows:
(a) Pleadings. There shall
be a complaint and an answer; a reply to a counterclaim denominated as such; an
answer to a cross-claim, if the answer contains a cross-claim; a third-party
complaint, if a person who was not an original party is summoned under the
provisions of rule 14; and a third-party answer, if a third-party complaint is
served . . . .
n13 Dismissal of plaintiff's
claims against Tyler with regard to her handling of plaintiff's grievances
shall be discussed below in the section D entitled "Grievance
Claims."
n14 Plaintiff contends that
he had been diagnosed with diabetes prior to Wilson's diagnosis; however, there
is no evidence in plaintiff's medical record of such.
n15 Defendant Terry is the only defendant who plaintiff alleges
prevented him from attending the law library. Plaintiff's other library claims
are all against defendants who allegedly did not handle plaintiff's grievances
in a manner to plaintiff's liking. Claims regarding defendants' handling of
plaintiff's grievances shall be addressed in section D, entitled
"Grievance Claims."
Click Back Button to Return
to Publication