Lambros v. English et al, No. 5:2017cv03105 - Document 19 (D. Kan. 2017)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 7 Motion for Mandamus. Action is dismissed. Signed by U.S. District Senior Judge Sam A. Crow on 9/27/17. (msb)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Lambros v. English et al Doc. 19 I N THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT FOR THE DI STRI CT OF KANSAS JOHN GREGORY LAMBROS, Plaint iff, vs. Case No. 17- 3105- SAC- DJW NI COLE ENGLI SH, Warden, USP- Leavenwort h, Defendant . MEMORANDUM AND ORDER On August 11, 2017, t he court filed it s order direct ing t he plaint iff “ t o com e forward wit h evidence, proffers and argum ent s t o show cause why his m ot ion for m andam us relief should not be prom pt ly denied for failure t o m eet t he required elem ent s of proof.” ECF# 15, p. 9. The plaint iff t im ely filed his response on August 25, 2017, ( ECF# 17) , and t he defendant t im ely filed her response on Sept em ber 8, 2017, ( ECF# 18) . The t im e for plaint iff t o file a reply has passed wit hout a filing. Wit h all relevant m at t ers before it , t he court is ready t o rule. The plaint iff recent ly sum m arized his act ion for m andam us relief as asking t he court t o order t he Bureau of Prisons ( “ BOP” ) t o have him t ransferred “ back t o t he Unit ed St at es Penit ent iary in Leavenwort h ( “ USP Leavenwort h” ) at t he conclusion of his parole- revocat ion hearing” and “ back t o his t reat ing physician” for his “ prescribed cancer t reat m ent .” ECF# 17, p. 1. I t is t he plaint iff’s posit ion t hat t he BOP’s failure t o t ransfer him back 1 Dockets.Justia.com would int erfere wit h his prescribed care and would am ount t o an int errupt ion of m edical care in violat ion of his right s under t he Eight h Am endm ent . The plaint iff’s response, as discussed lat er, shows som e shift in t heory away from needing t he care of a part icular physician and, inst ead, t oward doubt ing t he BOP’s int ent ions and plans for following t hrough wit h t he prescribed care during and aft er a t ransfer. I n it s show cause order, t he court looked past t he defendant ’s argum ent s on st anding and exhaust ion of adm inist rat ive rem edies and focused inst ead on t he part ies’ argum ent s whet her t he plaint iff’s allegat ions and available evidence show eligibilit y for m andam us relief. Specifically, t he plaint iff has t he burden t o est ablish: “ ( 1) t hat he has a clear right t o relief, ( 2) t hat t he respondent ’s dut y t o perform t he act in quest ion is plainly defined and perem pt ory, and ( 3) t hat he has no ot her adequat e rem edy.” Rios v. Ziglar, 398 F.3d 1201, 1206 ( 10t h Cir. 2005) ( cit at ion om it t ed) . Warden English was asking for dism issal because t he plaint iff is wit hout a const it ut ional right t o be placed in a part icular correct ional facilit y, because t he BOP enj oys broad discret ion in designat ing facilit ies for prisoners, and because t he plaint iff cannot show t he lack of ot her available and t im ely rem edies. The plaint iff was defending t hat his claim was not t ied t o choosing facilit ies but t o ret aining his t reat ing physician and t hat t he BOP has a clear dut y not t o violat e his right t o receive prescribed m edical care from his current physician. As part of t he proceedings, t he court received and 2 reviewed t he declarat ion of Jason Clark, M.D., t he m edical officer for USP Leavenwort h, who was knowledgeably inform ed about Mr. Lam bros’ condit ion and ongoing care. From t he plaint iff’s current t reat ing physician, Dr. Mizrahi, t he court review ed a docum ent signed by him and ent it led “ St andard of Care Rect osigm oid Cancer Follow up” which described t he visit s and t est s prescribed for t he plaint iff for t he first t wo years, for t he t hird and fourt h years, and for t he fift h year. ECF# 14- 1, p. 3. Dr. Mizrahi concluded wit h, “ Any qualified physician can perform t he St andard of Care follow up t reat m ent ; however, it would be best by a Colorect al Surgeon.” I d. I n t hat order, t he court recognized a cent ral issue was whet her t he plaint iff could m ake t he legal and fact ual bases t o an act ionable Eight h Am endm ent claim for needing t o see a part icular t reat ing physician near USP Leavenwort h for follow- up visit s aft er cancer surgery or whet her t his case involved no m ore t han t he discret ion and professional m edical j udgm ent of prison officials t o select an appropriat e physician near anot her USP facilit y in following t hrough wit h t he plaint iff’s prescribed post - surgical care and screening. ECF# 15, p. 6. The court offered t his analysis based on t he record as it was at t he t im e: Based on t he follow- up st andard of care prescribed by Dr. Mizrahi, t he m edical need of t he plaint iff m eet s t he obj ect ive t est of seriousness. Dr. Mizrahi’s let t er also est ablishes t hat for purposes of t he subj ect ive com ponent , t he plaint iff’s follow- up t reat m ent need not be done by Dr. Mizrahi only, but t hat any qualified physician could perform it wit h a preference for “ a” colorect al surgeon. ECF# 14- 1, p. 3. The plaint iff’s desire for “ t reat m ent by a specialist is, . . ., insufficient t o est ablish a const it ut ional violat ion.” Ledoux v. Davies, 961 F.2d 1536, 1537 ( 10t h 3 Cir. 1992) ; see Duffield v. Jackson, 545 F.3d 1234, 1239 ( 10t h Cir. 2008) . I t is t rue t hat “ int ent ional int erference w it h prescribed t reat m ent m ay const it ut e deliberat e indifference.” I d. There are no subst ant ive offers of proof or evidence t hat t he prescribed m edical t reat m ent here is t hat for all of t he follow- up visit s t he plaint iff m ust be seen and evaluat ed by only Dr. Mizrahi or by only a colorect al surgeon. I nst ead, t he st andard of care let t er produced by Dr. Mizrahi shows ot herwise. I n sum , t he m edical evidence of record present ly is uncont rovert ed in showing no subj ect ive com ponent t o t he plaint iff’s Eight h Am endm ent claim . The m edical opinion of record is t hat t he BOP can t ransfer t he plaint iff t o anot her facilit y and can provide t he st andard of care prescribed for t he plaint iff. The plaint iff’s m ot ion asks t he court t o speculat e t hat t he BOP will not be able t o m eet t his st andard of care due t o t he possibilit y of delay associat ed wit h any t ransfer and due t o not m aking concret e plans for such t reat m ent in advance of any t ransfer. Not only are t hese argum ent s m ere speculat ion, but t he plaint iff is wit hout any com pelling evidence t hat he is wit hout an adequat e rem edy in t he event of a delay. I ndeed, t here is no m edical evidence of record showing t hat t he plaint iff is facing a subst ant ial risk of harm should t here be delay of any lengt h. Moreover, t here is not hing of record t o show t hat t he defendant has failed or will fail t o t ake reasonable m easures necessary t o abat e any subst ant ial risk of harm . On t he present st at e of t he evident iary record, t he court declines t o order an im m ediat e hearing on t he plaint iff’s m ot ion and furt her declines t o order any t ransfer based on t he need for a hearing. I nst ead, t he court orders t he plaint iff t o com e forward wit h evidence, proffers and argum ent s t o show cause why his m ot ion for m andam us relief should not be prom pt ly denied for failure t o m eet t he required elem ent s of proof. ECF# 15, pp. 7- 9. Re spon se of M r . La m br os The plaint iff charact erizes t he defendant ’s evidence of record as first , “ general st at em ent s about t he BOP’s abilit ies t o provide care in t he abst ract , not as it pert ains t o Mr. Lam bros.” ECF# 17, p. 2. And t hese “ general st at em ent s,” in t he plaint iff’s opinion, assum e t he BOP will follow it s 4 own procedures whet her or not it has t he abilit y t o do so. The plaint iff asks t he court t o rej ect t hese general st at em ent s and t he underlying assum pt ion based on I nspect or General’s crit ical report s and ot her st udies done on t he BOP’s healt h- care syst em t hat were cit ed in Judge Posner’s dissent in Unit ed St at es v. Rot hbard, 851 F.3d 699, 704- 06 ( 7t h Cir. 2017) ( Holding t hat a 24m ont h sent ence of incarcerat ion was not unreasonable despit e t he defendant ’s diagnosis of leukem ia and his need for a prescript ion drug not found on t he BOP’s drug form ulary list ) , pet it ion for cert . filed, No. 17- 297 ( Aug. 22, 2017) . The plaint iff would have t he court find t hat t he obj ect ive evidence shows t he BOP will not follow t hrough and provide t he appropriat e m edical care he needs. As for case- specific evidence, t he plaint iff point s t o t he BOP’s adm ission t hat t he plaint iff should have been m oved t o a Level- 3 facilit y aft er his operat ion, but he rem ained at USP Leavenwort h, a Level- 2 facilit y, for six m ont hs and has now t ransferred t o t he Federal Transfer Cent er in El Reno, Oklahom a, anot her Level- 2 facilit y. The plaint iff opines t hat a delay in his t reat m ent is a “ life- t hreat ening” risk because his abilit y t o survive a recurrence depends in part on early det ect ion. ECF# 17, p. 7. He likewise offers t hat t his risk can be abat ed only if t he BOP develops a plan for his “ care at what ever facilit y” decided upon by t he BOP and t hat t his has not been done already shows t he BOP will not adequat ely deal wit h t he risk of delayed det ect ion. I d. at pp. 7- 8. The plaint iff says t here is no evidence t hat t he physicians now caring for him at t he t ransfer cent er even have 5 access t o his m edical records. As for an adequat e alt ernat ive legal rem edy, t he plaint iff denies t here is any and repeat s his opinion t hat “ a delay in his m edical care would likely result in t he undet ect ed ret urn of his cancer, which would put him at subst ant ial risk of deat h. “ I d. at p. 9. The plaint iff cit es general st at em ent s from t he Mayo Clinic’s websit e on t he diagnosis and t he sym pt om s and causes of colon cancer. I d. at 10. Re spon se of W a r de n En glish The defendant Warden English updat es us as t o Mr. Lam bros being current ly housed at t he Federal Transfer Cent er in El Reno, Oklahom a, in ant icipat ion of his parole revocat ion hearing present ly scheduled for Oct ober 9, 2017. ECF# 18, p. 1. The defendant challenges t he plaint iffs’ “ broad sweeping” generalizat ions about t he BOP’s m edical care of inm at es as insufficient t o j ust ify m andam us relief for prospect ive m edical care. The defendant point s t o her subm it t ed expert m edical evidence t hat shows t he plaint iff has no “ subj ect ive com ponent ” t o his Eight h Am endm ent claim . The defendant also subm it s t he declarat ion of Dr. George Pet ry, clinical direct or at t he El Reno Transfer Cent er, who has overseen t he plaint iff’s m edical care at t his facilit y. Dr. Pet ry declares t hat t he plaint iff’s m edical records were reviewed, t hat he has been seen by m edical providers on five occasions since his arrival, and t hat Dr. Pet ry has had “ m ult iple inform al visit s wit h inm at e Lam bros t o discuss his t reat m ent and address any of his concerns.” ECF# 18- 1, p. 2. Dr. Pet ry also not ed t hat Mr. Lam bros is scheduled for his 6 next blood t est ing CEA during t he week of Sept em ber 25t h which will be followed up wit h a m eet ing and discussion of result s. The defendant not es t he plaint iff has no evidence t hat he is not receiving adequat e m edical care. I nst ead, t he record is plain t hat t he plaint iff has received t he necessary m edical care for screening and t reat m ent of post - operat ive cancer in rem ission. There is not hing indicat ed in t his case t o show t hat t he plaint iff will not cont inue t o receive t he sam e adequat e m edical care upon t ransfer, and t he plaint iff’s own speculat ion t o t he cont rary does not m eet his burden. The defendant not es t hat t he plaint iff’s argum ent s and broad at t acks on t he BOP’s operat ions or general references t o colon cancer t reat m ent are not subst ant ive evidence im pact ing t he court ’s conclusion t hat , “ t here is not hing of record t o show t hat t he defendant has failed or will fail t o t ake reasonable m easures necessary t o abat e any subst ant ial risk of harm .” ECF# 18, p. 6. The defendant asks t he court t o find t hat t he plaint iff has failed t o sat isfy t he st rict requirem ent s for m andam us relief, t o deny t he plaint iff’s m ot ion, and t o dism iss t he act ion. An a lysis a n d H oldin g The plaint iff is consist ent in asking t hat t his court exercise it s m andam us power and so order t he BOP t o t ransfer him back t o USP Leavenwort h where he can rem ain under t he care of his current t reat ing physician and can avoid t he risk of int errupt ing his current ly prescribed m edical t reat m ent . As already discussed above, t he court ’s show cause 7 order laid out it s findings regarding t he plaint iff’s lack of proof on t he required elem ent s for m andam us relief on his Eight h Am endm ent claim . The plaint iff does not challenge t he subst ance and relevance of t he evidence on which t hose findings were based. Nor does he t ake issue direct ly wit h t he sufficiency of t hat evidence by it self t o sust ain t he court ’s findings. I nst ead, t he plaint iff would have t he court reconsider, recast , and even rej ect t he reliabilit y of t he m edical opinions of t hese different physicians in light of invest igat ive report s on t he BOP’s general pract ices of m edically caring for it s inm at es. At m ost , t hese report s offer st at ist ical generalizat ions pert inent t o policy m aking, but t hey lack any specific connect ion t o t he part icular m edical care given or t o be given t o t he plaint iff here. At m ost , t hese st at ist ical generalizat ions m ay ent it le a court t o indulge som e skept icism in j udging any blanket represent at ions from t he BOP about always providing inm at es wit h adequat e and appropriat e m edical care. Such evidence, however, cannot subst it ut e for or rebut t he act ual m edical evidence and t he t reat ing physicians’ opinions on t he care given t o t he plaint iff and on t he m edical abilit y of ot her facilit ies and physicians t o provide t he sam e care upon an appropriat e t ransfer. The plaint iff asks t he court t o grant him relief because he believes t hese invest igat ive report s j ust ify a lit igable concern over whet her t he BOP will do what it says. The court declines t he plaint iff’s request t o open t his door t o lit igat ion for every inm at e wit h a serious m edical condit ion 8 t o quest ion t he BOP’s int ent ions and t hereby st at e an Eight h Am endm ent claim . The evidence of record shows t hat t he BOP has provided real m edical care adequat e for t he plaint iff’s condit ion. The plaint iff’s housing in a Level- 2 facilit y like t hat at USP Leavenwort h, which rem ains accept able and preferable t o t he plaint iff at t his point , does not evidence any int ent ion or pract ice against providing adequat e m edical care of t he plaint iff. The plaint iff apparent ly does not desire a t ransfer t o a Level- 3 facilit y and does not at t em pt any showing t hat a delay in t his t ransfer poses any risk of subst ant ial harm . The act ual m edical evidence of record shows t he BOP’s awareness, concern, and int ent ion t o care for t he plaint iff’s condit ion. The plaint iff’s worries and anxiet ies based on t hese invest igat ive report s and on general st at em ent s about t he m edical care of colon cancer sim ply do not creat e a lit igable concern t hat t he BOP’s handling of his m edical care during and aft er a t ransfer will necessarily pose a subst ant ial risk of harm t o him . Nor is m andam us relief necessary or appropriat e j ust t o m eet t he plaint iff’s personal wishes for his fut ure m edical care t o be exact ly t he sam e as what he has received and t o com e wit h t he guarant ee of no delay in any degree or respect . All of t he evidence of record point s t o t he BOP’s ongoing effort t o provide m edical care t hat is adequat e, reasonable, and appropriat e consist ent wit h t he post - surgical care and screening prescribed by Dr. Mizrahi. 9 The court incorporat es from it s prior order t he cont rolling law and relevant findings based on t he m edical evidence t hat cont inues t o st and unrefut ed. These findings sust ain t he conclusions t hat t he BOP is aware of Dr. Mizrahi’s prescribed post - operat ive care and screening, has followed Dr. Mizrahi’s recom m endat ions, and has plans t o cont inue t his care during t he plaint iff’s current t ransfer and any fut ure t ransfers. The court is likewise persuaded from t he evidence t hat t he BOP is equipped and int ent ioned t o consider t he plaint iff’s m edical care needs in any fut ure t ransfers. Moreover, t he m edical evidence of record dem onst rat es t hat t he BOP has t he facilit ies, personnel, and capabilit y t o cont ract wit h qualified public physicians t o provide t he plaint iff wit h all t he care recom m ended by Dr. Mizrahi. The plaint iff sim ply has not carried his burden of showing he is clearly ent it led t o m andam us relief, as his worries do not j ust ify any court - ordered relief at t his t im e and any arguable concerns over delayed det ect ion do not present t hem selves as perem pt ory m at t ers out side t he discret ion and professional m edical j udgm ent of prison m edical officials. The plaint iff has not shown t hrough relevant m edical evidence t hat he faces a subst ant ial risk of harm from t he m anner in which t he BOP is planning and execut ing any of his t ransfers. The plaint iff’s desire for t reat m ent by a specialist or by a part icular doct or is “ insufficient t o est ablish a const it ut ional violat ion.” Ledoux v. Davies, 961 F.2d 1536, 1537 ( 10t h Cir. 1992) ; see Duffield v. 10 Jackson, 545 F.3d 1234, 1239 ( 10t h Cir. 2008) . I t is t rue t hat “ int ent ional int erference wit h prescribed t reat m ent m ay const it ut e deliberat e indifference.” I d. The plaint iff has not com e forward wit h any proof or evidence t hat t he m edical t reat m ent prescribed or recom m ended for him m ust be conduct ed by only Dr. Mizrahi or by anot her colorect al surgeon. The st andard of care let t er from Dr. Mizrahi shows ot herwise. The court rem ains convinced t hat t he plaint iff’s claim for m andam us relief would require t his court t o speculat e t hat t he BOP will not be able t o m eet t his st andard of care due t o poor int ent ions, poor execut ion, or poor planning. The plaint iff’s evidence is not of t he kind or qualit y t o carry t his significant burden. The plaint iff offers not hing but conj ect ure t hat any delay wit h any of t he screening m easures would creat e a subst ant ial risk of harm t o him . Nor can t his conj ect ure sust ain t he plaint iff’s burden of showing he is wit hout an adequat e rem edy in t he event of a possible delay. Because t he plaint iff has failed t o m eet t he st rict requirem ent s for m andam us relief, t he court hereby denies t he plaint iff’s m ot ion and dism isses t he act ion. I T I S SO ORDERED. Dat ed t his 27 t h day of Sept em ber, 2017, Topeka, Kansas. s/ Sam A. Crow Sam A. Crow, U.S. Dist rict Senior Judge 11
]]>
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.
