Hamrick v. Lopez et al, No. 4:2016cv00269 - Document 18 (E.D. Ark. 2017)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting Staley, Lopez, Bufford, and Grigsby's 14 motion for summary judgment; dismissing Hamrick's complaint; denying all requested relief; and certifying that an in forma pauperis appeal taken from this me morandum opinion and order and the accompanying judgment is considered frivolous and not in good faith. The dismissal of Hamrick's complaint counts as a "strike" for purposes of 28 U.S.C. 1915(g) and judgment will be entered for the defendants. Signed by Magistrate Judge Patricia S. Harris on 4/3/2017. (ljb)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Hamrick v. Lopez et al Doc. 18 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION JEFFERY LEE HAMRICK v. PLAINTIFF NO. 4:16-cv-00269 PSH STEVE LOPEZ, DAVID BUFFORD, MARGIE GRIGSBY, and JOHN STALEY DEFENDANTS MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER INTRODUCTION. The defendant s in t he case at bar have filed t he pending mot ion for summary j udgment . See Document 14. 1 For t he reasons t hat follow, t he mot ion will be, and is, grant ed. PLEADINGS. Plaint iff Jeffery Lee Hamrick (“ Hamrick” ) began t his case by filing a complaint pursuant t o 42 U.S.C. 1983. Hamrick j oined St eve Lopez (“ Lopez” ), David Bufford (“ Bufford” ), Margie Grigsby (“ Grigsby” ), and John St aley (“ St aley” ) in t heir official and individual capacit ies as officials wit h Lonoke Count y, Arkansas. Hamrick alleged t hat while he was incarcerat ed in t he Lonoke Count y, Arkansas, Det ent ion Cent er (“ Det ent ion Cent er” ) on an alleged parole violat ion, t he following occurred: 1 The defendant s appear t o have filed t heir mot ion pursuant t o Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. The rule provides, in part , t hat “ [t ]he court shall grant summary j udgment if t he movant shows t hat t here is no genuine disput e as t o any mat erial fact and t he movant is ent it led t o j udgment as a mat t er of law.” Dockets.Justia.com [In February of] 2015, I was incarcerat ed in Lonoke [Count y] Det ent ion Cent er at which I was a [t rust ee]. I was t est ed at t he beginning of March for [t uberculosis] and t he result s came back negat ive by Dr. Lisa Dillon. Bet ween t he mont hs of June and July, t here were five Hispanic men housed up front t hat had t est ed posit ive for [t uberculosis] and were being t reat ed. As a [t rust ee], it was my dut y t o clean t heir cells. I was not provided a respirat or and t here were no [t uberculosis] light s or filt ers t hroughout t he ent ire facilit y. I came t o [t he Arkansas Depart ment of Correct ion in August of] 2015 t o Malvern Diagnost ic Cent er where I was informed t hat I had t est ed posit ive for [t uberculosis] and was confirmed wit h a chest x-ray. The following nine weeks I was t reat ed wit h a vaccinat ion. See Document 2 at CM/ ECF 4. Hamrick asked t hat t he defendant s be ordered t o pay him monet ary damages. The defendant s t hereaft er filed t he pending mot ion for summary j udgment . They asked t hat t he complaint be dismissed and offered t he following reasons why: [Hamrick’ s] complaint does not st at e fact s t o support an “ official capacit y” claim against t he Defendant s. In short , t he complaint does not refer t o any cust om, policy or official pract ice at t he Lonoke Count y Det ent ion Cent er t hat would even minimally [pass] must er as an official capacit y claim under [42 U.S.C.] 1983. Furt hermore, Defendant s’ act ions did not violat e clearly est ablished st at ut ory or const it ut ional right s of which a reasonable person would have known, t herefore t he Defendant s are ent it led t o qualified immunit y. And, t he undisput ed fact s do not demonst rat e how each individual Defendant subj ect ively knew of an excessive risk t o [Hamrick’ s] healt h or safet y and t hen disregarded it . In ot her words, t he undisput ed fact s do not demonst rat e t he Defendant s act ed wit h deliberat e indifference. Finally, [Hamrick] is unable t o prove he acquired t he [t uberculosis] germs at t he det ent ion cent er, which is fat al t o his claim. See Document 15 at CM/ ECF 7. -2- Hamrick was not ified of his right t o file a response t o t he defendant s’ mot ion for summary j udgment and was given fourt een days from February 24, 2017, t o do so. He filed not hing in response t o t he mot ion, and t he t ime for doing so has now passed. FACTS. The defendant s accompanied t heir mot ion for summary j udgment wit h a st at ement of mat erial fact s as required by Local Rule 56.1(a). Hamrick filed not hing in response. Because he did not cont rovert t he fact s cont ained in t he defendant s’ st at ement , t he fact s set fort h in t he st at ement are deemed admit t ed. See Local Rule 56.1(c). The defendant s’ st at ement , and t he ot her pleadings and exhibit s in t he record, est ablish t hat t he mat erial fact s are not in disput e. Those fact s are as follows: 1. Beginning on February 17, 2015, and cont inuing t hrough August 21, 2015, Hamrick was incarcerat ed in t he Det ent ion Cent er on an alleged parole violat ion. See Document 2 at CM/ ECF 3; Document 16 at CM/ ECF 1. 2. During t hat period, St aley was t he Lonoke Count y, Arkansas, Sheriff; Lopez was t he Det ent ion Cent er Administ rat or; and Bufford and Grigsby were Det ent ion Cent er employees. See Document 2 at CM/ ECF 1-2; Document 16, Exhibit A at CM/ ECF 1. 3. The defendant s were not medical professionals and provided no medical care t o inmat es at t he Det ent ion Cent er. See Document 16 at CM/ ECF 1. 4. The inmat es’ medical care was provided by represent at ives of AR Care, a privat e healt h care company, and Det ent ion Cent er officials relied upon t he medical advice of t he AR Care represent at ives. See Document 16 at CM/ ECF 1. -3- 5. At some point during Hamrick’ s incarcerat ion, t he Det ent ion Cent er came t o house inmat es who were posit ive for, and being t reat ed for, t uberculosis. See Document 16 at CM/ ECF 1. 6. Tuberculosis is caused by a bact eria t hat manifest s it self as eit her a lat ent t uberculosis infect ion or t uberculosis disease. See Document 16, Exhibit s D, E. 7. A person wit h a lat ent t uberculosis infect ion has no sympt oms, does not feel sick, cannot spread t he bact eria t o ot her people, but may develop t uberculosis disease if not t reat ed. See Document 16, Exhibit s D, E. 8. Once t he t uberculosis bact eria becomes act ive, a person is considered t o have t uberculosis disease; it can cause serious sympt oms and is capable of being spread t o ot her people. See Document 16, Exhibit s D, E. 9. The Court assumes for purposes of t his Memorandum Opinion and Order t hat t he inmat es who were posit ive for t uberculosis were posit ive for t uberculosis disease. 10. Hamrick alleges, and t he Court accept s as t rue, t hat he was not one of t he inmat es who was posit ive for t uberculosis disease as he had previously been t est ed and cleared of t he t uberculosis bact eria. See Document 2 at CM/ ECF 4. 11. The AR Care represent at ives advised Det ent ion Cent er officials t o segregat e t he inmat es who were posit ive for t uberculosis disease and require t he inmat es t o wear masks over t heir faces. See Document 16 at CM/ ECF 1-2. 12. Det ent ion Cent er officials followed t he advice; t hey segregat ed t he inmat es and required t hem t o wear masks over t heir faces. See Document 16 at CM/ ECF 1-2. -4- 13. The AR Care represent at ives never recommended t hat Det ent ion Cent er officials or t rust ees wear masks over t heir faces when in cont act wit h t he inmat es who were posit ive for t uberculosis disease. See Document 16 at CM/ ECF 2. 14. As a result , Det ent ion Cent er officials and t rust ees did not wear masks over t heir faces when in cont act wit h t he inmat es who were posit ive for t uberculosis disease. 15. During t he course of Hamrick’ s incarcerat ion, he served as a t rust ee. See Document 16 at CM/ ECF 1. 16. He alleges, and t he Court accept s as t rue, t hat one of his responsibilit ies was t o clean t he cells housing t he inmat es who were posit ive for t uberculosis disease. See Document 2 at CM/ ECF 4. 17. He alleges, and t he Court accept s as t rue, t hat he did so wit hout a respirat or or any ot her t ype of prot ect ive equipment . See Document 2 at CM/ ECF 4. 18. The Det ent ion Cent er had t uberculosis light s at t ached t o it s vent ilat ion syst em, but t he light s were not fully funct ional. See Document 16 at CM/ ECF 2. 19. Hamrick was event ually t ransferred t o t he cust ody of t he Arkansas Depart ment of Correct ion where he underwent an init ial healt h assessment . See Document 16 at CM/ ECF 2. 20. He did not report any act ive t uberculosis sympt oms at t hat t ime, and none were not ed. See Document 16 at CM/ ECF 2. 21. As a part of t he assessment , he was t est ed for t he presence of t he t uberculosis bact eria, and t he t est result s were posit ive. See Document 16 at CM/ ECF 2. -5- 22. He t hen underwent a chest x-ray, and a radiologist int erpret ed t he result s of t he x-ray t o be as follows: Result s: There is no t uberculosis. The lungs are free of act ive pulmonary disease. The mediast inum shows no adenopat hy or mass. The heart is normal and t he osseous st ruct ures are also normal. There is no act ive disease. Conclusion: Normal chest wit h no evidence of t uberculosis. See Document 16, Exhibit C at CM/ ECF 9. 23. Hamrick has a lat ent t uberculosis infect ion and, as a precaut ion, was st art ed on a “ medicat ion [t uberculosis] prot ocol.” See Document 16 at CM/ ECF 2. ANALYSIS. Liberally and fairly const ruing Hamrick’ s pro se complaint , he does not allege t hat t he defendant s violat ed his const it ut ional right s when t hey allowed him t o serve as a t rust ee. He does not alleges t hat his const it ut ional right s were violat ed when he was asked, as a part of his j ob as a t rust ee, t o clean cells at t he Det ent ion Cent er or t hat his const it ut ional right s were violat ed when he was asked t o clean t he cells of inmat es who were posit ive for t uberculosis disease. Hamrick addit ionally does not allege t hat his const it ut ional right s were violat ed when t he defendant s failed t o discover t hat he had cont ract ed a lat ent t uberculosis infect ion and did not t reat him for t he infect ion. Liberally and fairly const ruing his complaint , he alleges t hat t he defendant s failed t o provide him wit h adequat e prot ect ive equipment when cleaning t he cells of t he inmat es who were posit ive for t uberculosis disease. -6- A convict ed inmat e’ s challenge t o t he condit ions of his prison work assignment is analyzed under t he Eight h Amendment . See Kulkay v. Roy, 847 F.3d 637 (8t h Cir. 2017). 2 A viable challenge requires t he inmat e t o make a t wo-part showing, t he first part of which is obj ect ive and t he second part of which is subj ect ive. The t wo-part showing is as follows: First , t he inmat e must show t he alleged violat ion is “ obj ect ively [and] sufficient ly serious.” [Cit at ion omit t ed]. An alleged violat ion is “ obj ect ively [and] sufficient ly serious” when t he inmat e “ is incarcerat ed under condit ions posing a subst ant ial risk of serious harm.” [Cit at ions omit t ed]. ... Second, t he inmat e must show t he defendant official act ed wit h a “ sufficient ly culpable st at e of mind.” [Cit at ions omit t ed]. This subj ect ive inquiry is “ analyzed in light of t he specific claim raised.” [Cit at ion omit t ed]. In a case challenging t he condit ions of confinement , t he requisit e st at e of mind is “ ‘ deliberat e indifference’ t o inmat e healt h or safet y.” [Cit at ions omit t ed]. “ An official is deliberat ely indifferent if he or she act ually knows of t he subst ant ial risk and fails t o respond reasonably t o it .” [Cit at ion omit t ed]. This requirement “ f ollows from t he principle t hat ‘ only t he unnecessary and want on inflict ion of pain implicat es t he Eight h Amendment .’ ” [Cit at ions omit t ed]. This court has repeat edly held mere negligence or inadvert ence does not rise t o t he level of deliberat e indifference. ... 2 Claims assert ed by pre-t rial det ainees are t ypically analyzed under t he Fourt eent h Amendment . See Ingram v. Cole Count y, 846 F.3d 282 (8t h Cir. 2017) (in evaluat ing const it ut ionalit y of pre-t rial det ainee’ s condit ions of confinement , proper inquiry is whet her condit ions amount t o punishment .) “ The Due Process Clause prohibit s any punishment before someone is adj udicat ed guilt y.” See Id. at 285. [Emphasis in original]. In t his inst ance, Hamrick alleges, and t he Court accept s, t hat he was incarcerat ed in t he Det ent ion Cent er on an “ alleged parole violat ion.” See Document 2 at 3. Because he had previously been adj udicat ed guilt y and was being incarcerat ed for allegedly violat ing his parole, he was not a pre-t rial det ainee but was inst ead a convict ed inmat e. His claims are t herefore analyzed under t he Eight h Amendment . -7- In cont rast t o negligence, “ deliberat e indifference requires a highly culpable st at e of mind approaching act ual int ent .” [Cit at ion omit t ed]. “ In t he prison work assignment cont ext , prison officials are deliberat ely indifferent when t hey knowingly compel ‘ an inmat e t o perform labor t hat is beyond t he inmat e’ s st rengt h, dangerous t o his or her life or healt h, or unduly painful.’ ” [Cit at ions omit t ed]. The defendant -official’ s st at e of mind “ must be measured by t he official’ s knowledge at t he t ime in quest ion, not by ‘ hindsight ’ s perfect vision.’ ” [Cit at ions omit t ed]. See Kulkay v. Roy, 847 F.3d at 642-643. Hamrick alleges t hat t he defendant s violat ed his const it ut ional right s when t hey failed t o provide him wit h adequat e prot ect ive equipment when cleaning t he cells of t he inmat es who were posit ive for t uberculosis disease, t hereby causing him t o cont ract a lat ent t uberculosis infect ion. 3 Applying t he law t o t he fact s of t his case, t he Court finds t hat his claim warrant s no relief. The undersigned so finds for t he following reasons. First , Hamrick cannot obt ain monet ary damages against t he defendant s in t heir official capacit ies. It is axiomat ic t hat an official capacit y claim against a count y employee is a claim against t he count y it self, see Liebe v. Nort on, 157 F.3d 574 (8t h Cir. 1998), and requires proof of an official cust om, policy, or pract ice giving rise t o t he alleged const it ut ional violat ion, see Johnson v. Blaukat , 453 F.3d 1108 (8t h Cir. 2006). Here, Hamrick has offered no proof t hat he was compelled t o work wit hout adequat e prot ect ive equipment because of an official cust om, policy, or pract ice. 3 The defendant s maint ain t hat Hamrick is unable t o prove he acquired t he t uberculosis bact eria while incarcerat ed in t he Det ent ion Cent er. The Court assumes, arguendo, t hat he cont ract ed t he lat ent t uberculosis infect ion while incarcerat ed in t here. -8- Second, assuming t hat t he alleged violat ion is obj ect ively and sufficient ly serious, Hamrick cannot show t hat St aley, Lopez, Bufford, or Grigsby act ed wit h a sufficient ly culpable st at e of mind, and Hamrick cannot prevail against t hem in t heir individual capacit ies. The defendant s were not medical professionals. The inmat es’ medical care was provided by represent at ives of AR Care, and Det ent ion Cent er officials relied upon t he medical advice of t he AR Care represent at ives. Det ent ion Cent er officials followed t he advice of t he AR Care represent at ives once it was learned t hat t here were inmat es who were posit ive for t uberculosis disease. Det ent ion Cent er officials segregat ed t he inmat es who were posit ive for t uberculosis disease and required t he inmat es t o wear masks over t heir faces. The AR Care represent at ives never recommended t hat Det ent ion Cent er officials or t rust ees wear masks over t heir faces when in cont act wit h t he inmat es who were posit ive for t uberculosis disease. In hindsight , St aley, Lopez, Bufford, and Grigsby should have provided Hamrick wit h some t ype of prot ect ive equipment as he was being exposed t o t he t uberculosis bact eria. The defendant s’ st at e of mind is measured, t hough, by t heir knowledge at t he t ime in quest ion, not in hindsight . They could and did reasonably rely upon t he advice, or lack t hereof, given by AR Care represent at ives during t he period Hamrick was cleaning t he cells and compel him t o clean t hem wit hout prot ect ive equipment . It is also not insignificant t hat Det ent ion Cent er officials t hemselves were not wearing prot ect ive equipment , and t he officials undoubt edly had some cont act wit h t he inmat es who were posit ive for t uberculosis disease. -9- CONCLUSION. Given t he foregoing, t here is no genuine disput e as t o any mat erial fact . St aley, Lopez, Bufford, and Grigsby are ent it led t o j udgment as a mat t er of law, and t heir mot ion for summary j udgment is t herefore grant ed. 4 Hamrick’ s complaint is dismissed, all request ed relief is denied, and j udgment will be ent ered for t he defendant s. The dismissal of Hamrick’ s complaint count s as a “ st rike” for purposes of 28 U.S.C. 1915(g), and t he Court cert ifies t hat an in forma pauperis appeal t aken from t his memorandum opinion and order and t he accompanying j udgment is considered frivolous and not in good fait h. IT IS SO ORDERED t his 3rd day of April, 2017. UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 4 The undersigned has not specifically addressed St aley, Lopez, Bufford, and Grigsby’ s assert ion of qualified immunit y. The undersigned has not done so because Hamrick has failed t o show t hat t he fact s, viewed in t he light most favorable t o him, demonst rat e t he deprivat ion of a const it ut ional or st at ut ory right . See Saylor v. St at e of Nebraska, 812 F.3d 637 (8t h Cir. 2016). -10-
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
