Opinion
Case No. 2:13-cv-32
02-10-2015
WILLIAM TODD LAPLANTE, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL LOVELACE, et al., Defendants.
HON. ROBERT HOLMES BELL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff William Todd LaPlante filed this pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 involving his incarceration while confined at the Marquette County Jail. The remaining Defendants are Marquette County Sheriff Michael Lovelace, Sergeant Brian Steede, Corporal Harrington, Deputy Mandie Haile, Dr. John Lehtinen and Marquette County.
Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants violated his First Amendment rights to attend religious service at the jail and his right to obtain a Bible and other books from his mother. Plaintiff alleges that Dr. Lehtinen violated his Eighth Amendment rights to provide him with medical care. Defendants move 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).
Plaintiff alleges that he was denied his Eighth Amendment rights to medical care. 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 Cnty., 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 Cnty., 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.Id. 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 v. Nichols, 62 F.3d 151, 154-55 (6th Cir. 1995); 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). If "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." Id.; see also Rouster v. Saginaw Cnty., 749 F.3d 437, 448 (6th Cir. 2014); Perez v. Oakland County, 466 F.3d 416, 434 (6th Cir. 2006); Kellerman v. Simpson, 258 F. App'x 720, 727 (6th Cir. 2007); McFarland v. Austin, 196 F. App'x 410 (6th Cir. 2006); Edmonds v. Horton, 113 F. App'x 62, 65 (6th Cir. 2004); Brock v. Crall, 8 F. App'x 439, 440 (6th Cir. 2001); Berryman v. Rieger, 150 F.3d 561, 566 (6th Cir. 1998). "Where the claimant received treatment for his condition, as here, he must show that his treatment was 'so woefully inadequate as to amount to no treatment at all.'" Mitchell v. Hininger, No. 13-5315, slip op. at 4-5 (6th Cir. Apr. 4, 2013) (quoting Alspaugh v. McConnell, 643 F.3d 162, 169 (6th Cir. 2011)).
Defendant Lehtinen was employed to work at the Marquette County Jail two Saturdays a month for an hour each day. Defendant Lehtinen was required to see jail inmates that were placed on the sick call list that was routinely prepared by nursing staff and made available to Defendant upon his arrival at the jail. Inmates had access to another physician 24 hours per day and could be sent to the local hospital if the need arose. Defendant's employment at the jail ended on September 21, 2011. In the opinion of the undersigned, Defendant Lehtinen, is entitled to dismissal of any claims that occurred after September 21, 2011, because it is clear that Defendant Lehtinen was not involved in Plaintiff's care after that date.
Further, Defendant Lehtinen, states that he never examined Plaintiff, because Plaintiff was never placed on the sick call list. Nor was Defendant ever informed that Plaintiff wanted to see him during his one hour Saturday visits. The only involvement that Defendant had with Plaintiff was on two occasions when Defendant reviewed Plaintiff's chart. Defendant reviewed Plaintiff's chart after Plaintiff stepped on nail on September 9, 2010, and again on September 23, 2010, after Plaintiff had informed staff that he was still having pain in his right foot. Defendant Lehtinen observed that Plaintiff was being treated by the on-call physician who ordered Ibuprofen, which was refused by Plaintiff, and that Plaintiff had been given an x-ray of the foot. The x-ray revealed no fracture or nerve damage. Defendant Lehitnen initialed the chart note, dated and stamped his name. Defendant Lehtinen indicates that he was under the belief that the jail medical staff acted appropriately. Defendant Lehtinen had no further involvement. In the opinion of the undesigned, Defendant Lehtinen is entitled to summary judgment, because there is no evidence which could establish that he acted with deliberate indifference to Plaintiff's medical needs.
Defendants Lovelance, Haile, Steede, Harrington and the County of Marquette move for qualified immunity from liability on Plaintiff's First Amendment claims. 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). "Qualified immunity balances two important interests-the need to hold public officials accountable when they exercise power irresponsibly and the need to shield officials from harassment, distraction, and liability when they perform their duties reasonably." Pearson v. Callahan, 129 S. Ct. 808, 815 (2009).
In making a qualified immunity determination the court must decide whether the facts as alleged or shown make out a constitutional violation or whether the right that was allegedly violated was a clearly established right at the time of the alleged misconduct. Id. at 816. If the court can conclude that either no constitutional violation occurred or that the right was not clearly established, qualified immunity is warranted. The court may consider either approach without regard to sequence. Id.
Plaintiff alleges that he was denied the right to attend weekly jail chapel services. Plaintiff was limited to going to the prison chapel service every other week due to a no contact order that he had with another jail inmate. Plaintiff first contends that the Defendants have violated his First Amendment right to freely practice his religion. Prisoners do not lose their right to freely exercise their religion by virtue of their incarceration. Cruz v. Beto, 405 U.S. 319, 322, n. 2 (1972). Freedom of religion being a fundamental right, any regulation which infringes upon it must generally be justified by a "compelling state interest." See, for example, Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972). However, as a prisoner, Plaintiff's constitutional rights are subject to severe restriction. See, for example, Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (1979) (restriction on receipt of reading materials); Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517 (1984) (privacy); Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 566 (1974) (right to call witnesses); Richardson v. Ramirez, 418 U.S. 24 (1974) (vote). See, generally, Washington v. Harper, 494 U.S. 210 (1990); Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987); O'Lone v. Estate of Shabazz, 482 U.S. 342 (1987).
Rather, the standard by which prison regulations impinging on prisoner constitutional rights is judged is "reasonableness." Turner, 482 U.S. at 88-95; Washington, 494 U.S. at 223-25. In Turner, the Supreme Court expressly rejected any degree of "heightened scrutiny" in order to assure that "prison administrators . . . and not the courts . . . make the difficult judgments concerning institutional operations." Id. at 89, quoting Jones v. North Carolina Prisoners' Union, 433 U.S. 119 (1977).
In Turner, the court set forth four factors "relevant in determining the reasonableness of the regulation at issue." 482 U.S. at 89-91. First, there must be a "valid, rational connection" between the prison regulation and the legitimate governmental interest put forward to justify it. Id. at 89, quoting Block v. Rutherford, 468 U.S. 576, 586 (1984). Second, the reasonableness of a restriction takes into account whether there are "alternative means of exercising the right that remain open to the prison inmate." Turner, 482 U.S. at 90. Third, the court should consider the "impact accommodation of the asserted constitutional right will have on guards and other inmates, and on the allocation of prison resources generally." Turner, 482 U.S. at 90. Finally, the existence or absence of ready alternatives of accommodating the prisoner's rights is relevant to reasonableness. Turner, 482 U.S. at 90. As stated by the court, this final factor "is not a 'least restrictive alternative' test." Id. at 90. "Prison officials need not show that no reasonable method exists by which [prisoners'] rights can be accommodated without creating bona fide [prison] problems." O'Lone v. Estate of Shabazz, 482 U.S. 342, 350 (1987).
Plaintiff was not denied the right to practice his religious beliefs. Plaintiff could attend the chapel services every other week. This limitation was placed on Plaintiff for his own protection, because he had a no contact order with another jail inmate. Plaintiff had dated the other jail inmate's sister and was allegedly involved in a domestic assault situation with her. The other inmate had threatened physical harm against Plaintiff if he saw Plaintiff in jail. The other inmate was allowed to attend chapel services during the week that Plaintiff was not allowed to attend. Under these circumstances, limiting Plaintiff to chapel service every other week was for Plaintiff's own protection and to prevent an assaultive incident in the jail. Accordingly, in the opinion of the undersigned, Plaintiff cannot show that his First Amendment religious rights were violated when he was prohibited every other week from attending jail chapel service for his own protection.
Plaintiff claims that his First Amendment right to purchase a Bible and other books was violated by Defendants. Defendants did not prohibit Plaintiff from purchasing publications, including a Bible, directly from the publisher. Plaintiff was only prohibiting from receiving these materials directly from his mother. Additionally, Plaintiff was informed that the prison had a library and that he could obtain a Bible from the prison pastor. In this case, the factors set forth in Turner apply. The jail regulation prohibiting inmates from obtaining publications from unapproved outside sources, is a rule applied to prevent contraband from being sent into the prison. The rule is justified by legitimate security reasons. Plaintiff has several available alternatives in the jail, including making purchases directly from approved third party publishers. In the opinion of the undersigned, Plaintiff cannot establish a violation of his First Amendment rights.
In summary, in the opinion of the undersigned, Plaintiff has failed to sustain his burden of proof in response to Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment. Accordingly, it is recommended that Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment (Docket #71 and #76) be granted and this case be dismissed in its entirety.
Defendant Joe Wilcox was never served with a summons and complaint.
Should the court adopt the report and recommendation in this case, the court must next decide whether an appeal of this action would 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 undersigned recommends granting Defendants' motion for summary judgment, the undersigned discerns no good-faith basis for an appeal. Should the court adopt the report and recommendation and should Plaintiff appeal this decision, the court will assess the $505 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 will be required to pay the $505 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 fourteen (14) 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).
/s/ Timothy P. Greeley
TIMOTHY P. GREELEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Dated: February 10, 2015