Fleming v. Clarke et al, No. 7:2016cv00410 - Document 115 (W.D. Va. 2018)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Senior Judge Jackson L. Kiser on 8/21/2018. (tvt)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
CLEgK' :egFlcg:@ plgxcœ r AT:ANMlki,v& . FILED IN THE UM TED STATES DISTRICT COURT FO R TH E W ESTER N D ISTR IC T O F W R G ING R O A N O K E D IW SIO N Ap% 2$ 2018 JUL! DM < CLERK BY: JOSEPH FLEXH NG, Plaintiff, CivilAction N o.7:16-cv-00410 V. M EMoltixbuM om xlox H AR O LD W .C LA QK E,et aI., D efendants. By: D L H on.Jacltson L .K iser Senior U nited States D istrictJudge Joseph Fleming,aVirginiainmateproceedingpro K ,comm enced thisaction againstthe . VirginiaDepndmentofCorrections($çVDOC''),NursePmks,NlzrseCrawford,andotherstaffof theVDOC andRiverNorth CorrectionalCenter(ç1RNCC'').PresentlypendingareNurseParks' andNurseCrawford'smotionsforsummaryjudgment,towhichPlaintiffrepliedanddidnot supplem entafterdiscovery. Afterreviewingtherecord,IgrantNurseParks'andNm se Crawford'smotionsforsummaryjudgmentandorderat' rialontheremairlingclaims.l 1. Plaintiffclaimsthathewasinjtlredwhenacorrectionaloftk ermadehim walkthrough a m etaldetectorin accordancewith prison secudty policy despitePlaintic sdisability and physical frailty.PlaintifffaultsN urseParksand NtlrseCrawford fornottellinglzim aboutthepdson's screeningswith m etaldetectorsand fornotissuing him am edicalwaiverforthatrequirem ent. Aspartofherjobduties,Nut'seParkscondudedPlaintiffsinitialmedicalscreeningwhen hennived atRNCC on Novem ber16,2015.NurseParksnoted in thetictlt' rentM edicalD ental Fleming v. Clarke et al Doc. 115 Problem s''section oftheçGlnka-system TransferM edicalReview''form thatPlaintiffused a 1By M emorandllm Opinion and Orderentered on January 30, 2018,Iawardedsl lmmaryjudgmenttoa1lother defendantsbutboth ntlrsesand CorrectionalOffcersLtmdyandDean.lheldthatmaterialdisputesoffactsrequired trialtoresolveEighth Amendment,wossnegligence,andwillfuland wonton negligenceclaimsagainstLtmdyand Dean,buttrialwouldnotbescheduledlmtilresolving theclaimsagainstthenurses. Dockets.Justia.com wheelchairand acane.NurseParksinformed Plaintiffthat,perRNCC regulations,he had to chooseeitherawheelchairoracmle. Plaintiffopted forthewheelchairbecause,although hecôuld nmbulate shortdistnnces,heneeded awheelchairto m ovelongerdistances.N urseParksdid not discussm edicalwaiversforwalking through m etaldetectorsbecausePlaintiffdid notask about thewaiverand indicatedhecould nmbulateshortdistances. NtlrseCraw ford'sfirstinteraction with Plaintiffoccurred imm ediately before amedical appointmenton December3,2015.Aspartofherjob duties,NurseCrawfordmeasuredPlaintiffs viu lsignsand noted hiscom plaintsofpain and requestforaw aiverforthem etaldetectors.The doctorapproved thewaiver,and NurseCrawlbrd noted thewaiverin Plaintiffsm edicàlfilethat snm eday. II. A partyisentitledtosllmmaryjudgmentifthepleadings,thedisclosedmaterialsonsle, and any afsdavitsshow thatthereisno genuine dispute asto any m aterialfact.Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a).M aterialfactsarethosenecessarytoestablishtheelementsofaparty'scauseofaction. Andersonv.LibertyLobbvsInc.,477U.S.242,248(1986).A genuinedisputeofmaterialfact existsif,inviewingadmissibleevidenceanda11reasonableinferences(Irawnthereom inaligàt m ostfavorabletothenon-m ovingparty,areasonablefact-findercould retlm laverdictforthenon- movant.J. IJ.SThemovingpartyhastheburden ofshowing- ççthatis,pointingouttothedistrict court- thatthereisan absenceofevidenceto supportthenonm ovingparty'scmse.'' Celotex Cop . v.Catrett,477U.S.317,325 (1986).Ifthemovantsatisfesthisburden,thenthenon-movantmust setforthspecilk factsthatdemonstratetheexistenceofagenuinedisputeoffactfortrial.J#-,at 322-24.A partyisentitledtosllmmaryjudgmentiftheadmissibleevidenceasawholecouldnot 2 lead arationaltderoffactto find in favorofthenon-m ovant. W illinm sv.Griffin,952 F.2d 820, 823(4th Cir.1991).çûM ereunsupportedspeculation...isnotenoughtodefeatasllmmary judgmentmotion.''Ennisv.Nat'lAss'nofBus.& Educ.Radio.Inc.,53F.3d55,62 (4thCir. 1995). A plaintiffcnnnotusearesponsetoamotionforslzmmaryjudpnenttonmendorcorrecta complaintchallengedbythemotionforsllmmaryjudgment.Cloaningerv.M cDevitt,555F.3d 324,336(4thCir.2009). 111. A. PlaintiffassertsthatNtlrse Crawlbrd intlicted crueland tmusualpunishm entin violation of theEighth Amendm ent. A plaintiffm ustshow thatadefendantacted with deliberateindifference toasedousmedicalneedtostatesuchaclaim .W estv.Atldns,487U.S.42,48(1988);Estellev. Gnmble,429U.S.97,104(1976);Connerv.Dormelly,42F.3d220,222 (4ti Cir.1994). Deliberateindifference requiresastateactortohavebeen personally aw areoffactsindicating a substmntialrisk ofseriousharm,andtheactorm usthave actuallyrecognizedthe existenceofsuch arisk.Fennerv.Brennan,511U.S.825,838(1994).ço eliberateindifferencemaybe . dem onstrated by eitheractualintentorrecklessdisregard.''M iltierv.Beorn,896 F.2d 848,851 (4th Cir.1990);seePnrrishex rel.Leev.Cleveland,372 F.3d294,303(4thCir.2004)(G&(T)he evidencemustshow thattheoffcialinquestionsubjectivelyrecognizedthatlzisactionswere çinappropriatein lightofthatdsk.''').IGA defendantactsrecklesslyby disregardingasubstnntial 1 ! risk ofdangerthatiseitherlcnowntothedefendantorwhichwouldbeapparenttoareasonable i ! personinthedefendant'sposition.''Miltier,896F.2d at851-52.A healthcareprovidermaybe ! ( deliberately indifferentwhen thetreatm entprovidedisso grossly incompetent,inadequate,or ! . excessiveastoshocktheconscienceorisintolerabletoftmdnmentalfairness.L1 J.at851.A 3 seriousm edicalneedisa condition thatGGhasbeen diagnosed by aphysician asm r dating treatmentoronethatisso obviousthateven alay person wbuld easily recognizethenecessity fora doctor'sattention.''Ikov.Shreve,535F.3d225,241(4thCir.2008). NurseCrawfordisentitledtosllmmaryjudgmentfortheEighthAmendmentclaim.No admissibleevidence in therecord supportsan ie erencethatNurseCrawford knew ofa seriousrisk ofhann,disregarded thatrisk,orcaused Plaintiffharm.N urse Crawlbrd firstsaw Plaintiffon December3,2015,im m ediatelybefore PlaintiffsappointmentwiththedoctoratRNCC. Consistentwith herresponsibilities,Nurse Crawfordm easured Plaintiff'svitalsignsand documented lliscomplaintmzdrequestforam edicalwaiver.Although NurseCrawlbrd could not haveauthodzed thewaiver,shedid facilitatetherequestandrecorded itsapproval.PlaintiY s disagreementwithmedicalpersormelaboutacotlrseoftreatmentdoesnotstateaj1983claim. W richtv.Collins,766F.2d 841,849(4th Cir.1985);Russellv.Sheffer,528F.2d318,319 (4th Cir.1975)(percudnm).Accordingly,NurseCrawlbrd'smotionforsummaryjudpnentisgranted fortheEighth Amendmentclaim . B. PlaintiffallegesthatNtlrse Parks'andNtlrse Crawford'salleged failuresto advisehim of themetaldetectorrequirementortoprovide awaiverofthatrequirementconstimtessimple negligence.Ifmd thatNurseParksand NurseCraw ford at'eentitled to sovereign immtmity fo< these claim s. FourfactorsdeterminewhetherNurseParksand NurseCrawford areentitled to sovereign im munity forsim plenegligencewhile employeesoftheComm onwealth ofVirginia. See.e.a., Jnmesv.Jane,221Va.43,53,282 S.E.2d 864,869(1980);seealsoW eichertCo.v.First 4 ' CommercialBnnk,246Va.108,109,431S.E.2d308,309(1993)(discussingbtlrden).Thefactors are:(1)thefunctionthattheemployeewasperformingatthetimeoftheallegednegligence;(2) theextentofthestate'sinterestandinvolvementinthatftmction;(3)thedegreeofcontroland directionexercisedbythestateovertheemployee;and(4)whethertheactperformedinvolvedthe useofjudgmentanddiscretion.W hitleyv.Commonwea1th,260Va.482,493,538S.E.2d296, 301(2000). ' Thetmdisputed admissibleevidence dem onstratesthasNtlrseParksandNurse Crawlbrd were employeesoftheCom monwea1th ofVirginiaperformingtheirdutiesasnttrsesforthe VDOC.Thestate'sinterestand involvem entin them edicalcare ofthe convictsin itscareis irrefuuble,andthe stateexercised'greatcontroloverwhom thenuzsestreated and thedutiesand treatm entsallowed.Nurse Parks'dutiesincluded screening aniving inmates,discussing the inm ate'sm edicalconcernsand conditions,documenting thepertinentm edicalhistory and complaintsfortransm ittalto a doctor,and detennizling whethermedicalconditionspreventan inm atefrom being housed attheprison.Nm seCrawford'spertinentdutiesincluded theinitial assessmentofinm ates'health im mediately befoream edicalappointmentand infbrmingthedoctor ofpertinentmedicalobservations.Therelevantm edicalflznctionsofboth NtlrseParksand Ntlrse Crawlbrdconsistedofdiscretionaryacts,requiringmnkingmultiple,professionaljudgmentsabout PlaintiY sevaluation andtreatment.Seeid.(applyingsovereignimmtmitytosimplenegligence claimsagainstVDOC nursesinvolvingmedicalcaretoaninmate).Accordingly,NurseParksand NtlrseCrawfordareentitledtosovereir immllnity andsllmmaryjudgmentforthesimple negligenceclaims. 5 ' C. PlaintiffarguesthatNurse Crawlbrd should beliableforgrossnegligence. See.e.c., Frazierv.CitvofNorfolk,234Va.388,393,362 S.E.2d688,691(1987)(notinggrossnegligence meansan absenceofslightdiligenceorofevenscantcare).W hen adefendantexercisesSssome degree''ofcareforthe safety ofothers,aclaim ofg' rossnegligencecnnnotsucceed. Colby v. Boyden,241Va.125,133,400S.E.2d 184,189(1991).ThetmdisputedrecordevincesthatNlzrse Crawford exercised,atm inim um ,slightdiligenceorscantcare. NurseCrawlbrd perform ed the m edicalsoreening before Plaintiœ sappointm ent,referred Plaintiv spertinentcomplaintsto the doctor,andnotedthe approvedwaiverinthem edicalrecord.Accordingly,Nm seCrawlbrd is entitledto sldmm aryjudgmentforthegrossnegligenceclaim. - IV . Fortheforegoing remsons,1grantNtlrseParks'and NttrseCrawford'smotionsfor summaryjudgment.TheremainingEighth Amendment,grossnegligence,andw1111 1andwonton negligence claim sagainstCorrectionalOfficersLtmdy and Dean shallbeassignedto another districtjudgeoftlziscourtforajurytrialintheRoanokeDivision. ENTER:Thi l dayofAugust,2018. eni rUnited StatesDistlictJudge 6
]]>
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.
