LILLARD v. Jeanes et al, No. 1:2012cv00039 - Document 137 (M.D. Ga. 2012)
Court Description: ORDER denying as moot 55 Motion for Preliminary Injunction; denying as moot 64 Motion for Preliminary Injunction; denying as moot 72 Motion for Preliminary Injunction; granting 76 Motion to Dismiss Complaint; denying as moot 87 Motion For I mmediate Medical Treatment; denying as moot 96 Motion for Preliminary Injunction; denying as moot 96 Emergency Motion For Preliminary Injunction; denying as moot 113 Motion for Preliminary Injunction; adopting Report and Recommendations re [115 ] Report and Recommendations.; denying as moot 11 Motion For Emergency Medical Care; denying as moot 12 Motion For Adequate Medical Treatment; denying as moot 14 Motion For Emergency Medical Treatment; denying as moot 15 Emergency Motion For Medical Treatment; denying as moot 16 Motion For Emergency Medical Treatment; denying as moot 23 Motion For Emergency Medical Treatment; denying as moot 25 Dispositive Motion For Immediate Medical Treatment ; denying as moot 26 Dispositive Mo tion For Immediate Protective Order; denying as moot 29 Emergency Motion For Immediate Medical Treatment; denying as moot 30 Emergency Motion For Immediate Medical Treatment; denying as moot 33 Dispositive Motion For Immediate Medical Treatment; denying as moot 34 Dispositive Motion For Immediate Medical Treatment ; denying as moot 36 Emergency Medical Motion ; denying as moot 38 Motion For Immediate Medical Exam.Ordered by Judge W. Louis Sands on 11/1/12 (wks)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
LILLARD v. Jeanes et al Doc. 137 IN TH E U N ITED STATES D ISTRICT COU RT FOR TH E MID D LE D ISTRICT OF GEORGIA ALBAN Y D IVISION CH ARLES B. LILLARD , Plain tiff, v. W ARD EN JOH N JEAN ES, e t a l., D e fe n d an ts . : : : : : : : : : : CASE NO.: 1:12 -CV-3 9 ( W LS) ORD ER A. Re p o rt a n d Re co m m e n d a tio n ( Do c. 115) Before th e Court is a Recommendation (Doc. No. 115) from Un ited States Magistrate J udge Th om as Q. Lan gstaff, filed Septem ber 17, 20 12. It is recom m en ded th at Plain tiff’s Complain t (Doc. 1) be D ISMISSED for failure to state a claim upon wh ich relief can be gran ted, an d that Plain tiff’s Motion s for In junctive Relief (Docs. 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 23, 25, 26, 29, 30 , 33, 34, 36, 38, 55, 64, 72, 87, 96, an d 113) be D EN IED as MOOT. On September 21, 20 12, Plain tiff timely subm itted an objection to J udge Langstaff’s Recom m endation. (Doc. 122). In his Objection, Plaintiff m erely reiterates h is request for “adequate medical treatmen t,” an d in forms the Court th at Dr. Ayers diagn osed him as havin g an ulcer in his abdom en on Septem ber 6, 20 12. (Id.) Defen dan ts filed a respon se wherein which they n ote that Plain tiff’s Objection “does not ch allen ge an y part of, an d does n ot iden tify an y error in , the Magistrate J udge’s Report an d Recommen dation .” (Doc. 123 at 3). In a reply in support of h is Objection , Plain tiff 1 Dockets.Justia.com argues th at h e told Defen dan ts “in person h ow sick h e is[,] h ow much serious chronic pain he is sufferin g, an d ask[ed] the Defen dan ts in person an d medical request, as well as letters to th e Defen dan ts askin g if th ey would please request some adequate medical treatm en t.” (Doc. 128 at 1). Thus, accordin g to Plain tiff, this is “proof” of th e Defen dan ts’ “person al in volvemen t.” (Id.) The Court has reviewed Plain tiff’s Objection an d similarly agrees that Plain tiff h as failed to iden tify an y errors in J udge Lan gstaff’s Recommen dation th at would lead th is Court to sustain Plain tiff’s Objection . As J udge Lan gstaff n oted, Plain tiff h as n amed on ly supervisory officials in his Complain t, th ough Plain tiff has failed to articulate an y basis for holdin g an y of th ese supervisory officials liable under § 1983. “It is well establish ed in th is Circuit th at supervisory officials are n ot liable under § 1983 for the un con stitution al acts of their subordin ates on the basis of respon deat superior or vicarious liability.” Hartley v. Parn ell, 193 F.3d 1263, 1269 (11th Cir. 1999). To state a claim for supervisory liability un der § 1983, a plain tiff must either allege 1) that the supervisor person ally participated in the alleged con stitution al violation or 2) th at a causal con n ection existed between the action s of th e supervisin g officials and the alleged con stitution al deprivation . Id. (describin g the in stances wh en a supervisor can be h eld liable un der § 1983). With regard to the secon d pron g, a causal conn ection can be established when either on e of the followin g is presen t: 1) “a history of widespread abuse puts th e respon sible supervisor on notice of th e n eed to correct th e alleged deprivation an d he fails to do so” or 2) “the supervisor’s im proper custom or policy results in deliberate in differen ce to con stitution al rights.” Id. (addition al citation s an d quotations omitted). To be action able, “[t]he deprivation s that constitute widespread abuse sufficien t to n otify the supervisin g official must be obvious, flagran t, rampan t an d 2 of con tinued duration , rath er than isolated occurren ces.” Id. (citations om itted). In recommen din g that Plain tiff’s Complain t be dism issed for failure to state a claim, J udge Lan gstaff foun d that Plain tiff’s Complain t alleged n on e of the above. Nonetheless, in h is Objection, Plaintiff seeks to avoid dism issal of h is Complaint by n otin g th at h e received an ulcer diagn osis from Dr. Ayers. (Doc. 122 at 1). However, th e inform ation regarding Dr. Ayers fails to provide eviden ce demonstrating Defendan ts’ person al involvemen t in the alleged constitution al deprivation,1 or sh owin g th at th ere is a causal conn ection between Defen dan ts’ action s and the alleged den ial of rights. Even if Plaintiff is not intending to proceed on a theory of vicarious liability against th e nam ed defen dan ts, th e allegation regardin g Dr. Ayers is still un availin g for demon stratin g th at an y of the n amed Defen dan ts en gaged in any con duct that is action able under § 1983. See Brow n v. Johnson, 387 F.3d 1344, 1351 (11th Cir. 20 0 4) (n otin g th at to show th at a prison official acted with deliberate in differen ce to serious medical n eeds, th e prison er must satisfy a subjective elemen t, which requires th at th e prison er allege facts sh owin g the prison official’s 1) subjective kn owledge of a risk of serious harm ; 2) disregard of that risk; an d 3) conduct th at is more th an mere n egligen ce). Thus, for all of th e foregoin g reason s, Plain tiff’s Complain t fails to state a claim upon which relief can be gran ted again st an y of the n amed Defen dan ts. This Court h as reviewed an d con sidered th e record. Havin g foun d that Plain tiff h as n ot presen ted an y meritorious objection to th e fin din gs in th e Magistrate’s Septem ber 17, 20 12 Recom m endation, this Court finds that said Recom m endation sh ould be, an d hereby is, ACCEPTED , ADOPTED an d m ade the Order of this Court 1 As for Plaintiff’s contention that his medical requests, letters to defendant, and in-person statem ents dem onstrate “proof” of Defendants’ “personal involvem ent,” as J udge Langstaff noted in his Recom m endation, receipt of a grievance, letter or medical request cannot alone form the basis of an allegation of a supervisor’s personal knowledge or participation. (See Doc. 115 at 4). 3 for reason of the fin din gs made an d reason s stated therein togeth er with the findin gs made, reason s stated, an d con clusion s reached herein . Accordin gly, Plain tiff’s Com plaint (Doc. 1) is D ISMIS SED . Plain tiff’s Motion s for In jun ctive Relief (Docs. 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 23, 25, 26, 29, 30 , 33, 34, 36, 38, 55, 64, 72, 87, 96, an d 113) are D EN IED AS MOOT. Plain tiff’s Motion to Appoin t Coun sel (Doc. 125) is also h ereby D EN IED AS MOOT. B. Mo tio n s fo r In ju n ctive Re lie f ( D o cs . 118 , 12 7, a n d 12 9 ) Th ough referred to J udge Lan gstaff, the Court also reviewed Plain tiff’s Motion s for In junctive Relief (Docs. 118, 127, an d 129), filed subsequen t to the en try of J udge Lan gstaff’s September 17, 20 12 Recommen dation (Doc. 115). The Court fin ds that these motion s are reproduction s of Plain tiff’s prior Motion s for Injunctive Relief, which the Court h as already den ied as moot. Therefore, th e Court fin ds n o in depen den t basis for allowin g these motion s to go forward in the face of the dism issal of Plain tiff’s un derlyin g Complain t (Doc. 1). Accordin gly, Plain tiff’s subsequen t Motion s for In jun ctive Relief (Docs. 118, 127, an d 129) are also D EN IED AS MOOT. However, the Court fin ds it im portan t to n ote that even if it were to con sider th e merits of Plain tiff’s Motion s for In jun ctive Relief, Plain tiff’s requests for injunctive relief would be den ied. A district court may gran t in jun ctive relief if th e party movin g for in jun ctive relief shows the followin g: 1) substan tial likelihood of success on th e m erits; 2) irreparable in jury will be suffered un less the in jun ction issues; 3) the th reaten ed in jury to the m ovan t outweighs whatever dam age the proposed in junction m ay cause th e opposin g party; an d 4) if issued, th e injun ction would n ot be adverse to the public interest. McDon ald’s Corp. v. Robertson , 147 F.3d 130 1, 130 6 (11th Cir. 1998). Th e Eleven th Circuit has h eld that “a prelim in ary in jun ction is an extraordin ary an d drastic 4 remedy n ot to be gran ted un less the movan t clearly establish ed th e ‘burden of persuasion ’ as to the four requisites.” All Care Nursin g Serv., In c. v. Bethesda Mem . Hosp., In c., 887 F.2d 1535, 1537 (11th Cir. 198 9) (citation s omitted). In this case, the Court, via its adoption of J udge Lan gstaff’s Recommen dation , foun d that Plain tiff failed to demon strate a claim for relief un der § 1983 as again st Defen dan ts. However, alth ough the dism issal of Plain tiff’s Complain t was couch ed in terms of a failure to allege claims for relief un der § 1983 as again st the n amed Defen dan ts, Plain tiff’s Complain t fails to allege an y facts sufficien t to im plicate a violation of the Eighth Am en dm en t. A review of th e documen ts submitted by Defen dan ts, in cludin g the affidavits of Defen dan t Whatley, th e Health Services Admin istrator at CSP, an d Dr. Dwayn e Ayers, M.D., the Medical Director at CSP, in dicate th at Plain tiff has received medical atten tion an d treatmen t for his complain ts of pain. (See Docs. 77, 77-1, 10 4, 10 4-1). Plain tiff has n ever den ied this treatmen t in either h is Complain t or his follow-up requests for medical treatmen t. (See generally Docket). Even assumin g th at Plain tiff believes th e prescribed treatmen t h as been in sufficien t, Plain tiff’s “m ere disagreemen t” with th e course of treatmen t can n ot serve as th e basis of a claim un der § 1983.2 Murphy v. Medical Dept. Chatham Cn ty . Jail, No. CV40 7-166, 20 0 8 WL 371417, at *3 (S.D. Ga. Feb. 11, 20 0 8) (“A prison er’s m ere disagreem en t with a 2 The Court does note that, in his more recent pleadings, Plaintiff alleges that he has received “no medical treatment” for the “mass in his abdomen.” (See e.g., Doc. 136 at 1). However, Plaintiff has failed to allege that treatment was prescribed for this mass and that he was denied said treatment. Stated in other words, Plaintiff has simply failed to allege any facts showing that medical treatment was found to be necessary outside of his allegation that medical treatment was denied to him and his unsubstantiated, layperson assertion that the “mass in [his] abdomen should not be there.” (Doc. 120 at 3). However, in order to state a claim for deliberate indifference to a serious medical need, “a plaintiff must set forth evidence of an objectively serious medical need.” Farrow v. West, 320 F.3d 1235, 1243 (11th Cir. 2003)). “In our circuit, a serious medical need is considered ‘one that has been diagnosed by a physician as mandating treatment or one that is so obvious that even a lay person would easily recognize the necessity for a doctor’s attention.” Id. (citation omitted). Plaintiff freely alleges that he received a diagnosis of an “ulcer,” but does not allege any facts to show that the ulcer was “diagnosed by a physician as mandating treatment.” Thus, even construing inferences in Plaintiff’s favor, Plaintiff’s complaint fails to sufficiently allege an “objectively serious medical need.” 5 jail’s medical person n el about th e proper course of treatm en t does n ot en title him to § 1983 relief.”); Sm ith v. Florida Dept. of Corrections, 375 F. App’x 90 5, 910 (11th Cir. Apr. 8, 20 10 ) (“‘[A] simple differen ce in medical opin ion between th e prison ’s medical staff an d the in mate’ regardin g th e course of treatmen t does not state an Eigh th Am en dm en t claim.”) (quotin g Harris v. Thigpen, 941 F.2d 1495, 150 5 (11th Cir. 1991))): Adam s v. Poag, 61 F.3d 1537, 1545 (11th Cir. 1995) (“[T]he question of whether govern m en t actors should have em ployed addition al diagn ostic techniques or form s of treatm en t ‘is a classic example of a matter for medical judgmen t’ an d therefore n ot an appropriate basis for groun din g liability un der the Eigh th Am en dm en t.”) (quotin g Estelle v. Gam ble, 429 U.S. 97, 10 7 (1976))). Thus, Plaintiff h as failed to state a valid claim of deliberate in differen ce un der th e Eighth Am endm en t. Therefore, though this Court is on ly dismissin g Plain tiff’s Complain t as against Defen dan ts, Plain tiff has thus far failed to allege an y facts sufficien t to state a viable § 1983 claim, even as a gen eral matter. Con sequen tly, Plain tiff h as failed to demon strate a substan tial likelih ood of success on the merits, an d h as thus failed to establish an en titlemen t to in jun ctive relief. See, e.g., Riley v. Georgia Dept. of Corrections, No. CV 311-10 2, 20 12 WL 2872636, at *5 (S.D. Ga. Apr. 17, 20 12) (fin din g th at wh ere plain tiff failed to state a viable § 1983 claim for deliberate in differen ce to a serious medical n eed, plain tiff fell sh ort of demon stratin g a substan tial likelihood of success on the merits of such a claim, an d th us, plain tiff failed to establish a requisite elemen t for establishin g an en titlemen t to in jun ctive relief), adopted by 20 12 WL 2872641 (S.D. Ga. J uly 12, 20 12). Accordin gly, in addition to bein g moot, Plain tiff’s motion s for prelim in ary injunctive 6 relief are meritless. SO ORD ERED , th is 1st day of Novem ber, 20 12. / s/ W. Louis Sands_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ TH E H ON ORABLE W . LOU IS SAN D S, U N ITED STATES D ISTRICT COU RT 7
]]>
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.
