Milgrim v. Clarke et al, No. 7:2018cv00048 - Document 83 (W.D. Va. 2019)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Senior Judge Jackson L. Kiser on 7/9/2019. (tvt)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
' cuERx,uA o-i TnAœsvu jle kiaz ,vAïie*N.ù.. . FILEO JUL -2.2212 IN TH E UN ITED STA TES D ISTR ICT CO U R T FO R TH E W E STER N D ISTR ICT O F W R G IN IA R O A N O K E D IV ISIO N BYZUL : j D , * ' c .. L CASE NO.7:18CV0048 W ILLIA M F.M IL G R IM ,JR ., Plaintiff, M EM O M N D UM O PINIO N HAROLD W .CLARKE,etal., By: Jackson L .K iser Senior U nited States DistrictJudge D efendants. PlaintiffW illiam F.M ilgrim ,Jr.,a Virginiainm ateproceeding pro K ,hasfiled this civil - . rightsactionpursuantto42U.S.C.j1983.1Thematterbeforethecotlrtisthemotionforsummary judgmentfiled by defendantsHarold W .Clarke,Bernard Booker,Nurse Pnmela Shipp,Stacy M einhard,and Cnrmen Rodriguez. Upon review ofthe record,Iconclude thatthe defendants' m otion m ustbegranted. 1. M ilgrim fsled thisj 1983 action againstdefendantsVirginiaDepartmentofCorrections (&1VDOC'') Director Clarke, W arden Booker,Nurse Shipp,Grievance Coordinator (C&GC'') M einhard,and RegionalOmbudsman (&$RO'')Rodriguez foralleged constitmionalviolations.z M ilgrim seeksonly injunctiverelief.Thedefendantshavefiledamotion forsumrparyjudgment andM ilgrim hasresponded,m aldngthem atterripefordisposition.Liberallyconstrued,M ilgrim 's claimsare that:(1)Nurse Shipp,Director Clarke,and W arden Bookeracted with deliberate Milgrim v. Clarke et al indifferenceto M ilgrim'sseriousmedicalneeds;(2)GC M einhard and RO Rodriguezrestricted Doc. 83 1Ihave om itted internalcitations, alterations,and quotation marksthroughoutthisopinion,unless othem isenoted.SeeUnited Statesv.M arshall,872F.3d213,217n.6(4thCir.2017). 2 On August 2, 2018, l granted M ilgrim 's m otion to amend his com plaint and severed and transferred hisclaim sagainstdefendants SteveHerrick,Dr.Leon Dixon,NurseLauriçH ightow er,and Dr. LevesterThompsontotheUnited StatesDistrictCourtfortheEastenzDistrictofVirginia.(EECF 411). Dockets.Justia.com . CI hisaccesstothecourts;(3)defendantsdidnotfollow properVDOC procedtlrewith respectto M ilgrim 'sgrievances;and(4)thePrisonLitigationRefonu Act(E$PLRA'')istmconstittztional.3 II. FederalRule of CivilProcedure 56(a) providesthata courtshould grant summary judgmentççifthemovailtshowsthatthereisno genuine disputeasto any materialfactandthe movantisentitledtojudgmentasamatteroflaw.''isAstomateriality,...gojnlydisputesover factsthatm ightaffecttheoutcome ofthe suittmderthe governing 1aw willproperly precludethe entry ofsllmmaryjudgment.''Anderson v.LibertyLobby.Inc.,477U.S.242,248(1986).The disputeoveramaterialfactmustbegenuine,tdsuch thatareasonablejury could rettum averdict fortflenonmovingparty.''Id.;seealsoJKC HoldingCo.v.W ash.SportsVenttlres.Inc.,264F.3d 459,465 (4th Cir.2001). As such,themoving paz'ty is entitled to summaryjudgmentifthe evidence supporting a genuine issue ofmaterialfact(Kis merely colorable or isnotsignifcantly probative.'' A nderson,477 U .S.at249. The moving party bears the burden of proving that judgment on the pleadings is appropriate. Celotex Cop .v.Catrett,477 U.S.317,322-23(1986).Ifthemovingparty meets thisbtlrden,then the nonmoving party m ustsetforth specific,admissible factsto dem onstrate a genuineissue offactfortrial.M atsushita Elec.Indus.Co.v.Zenith Radio Cop .,475 U.S.574, 587(1986).In considering amotion forsllmmaryjudgment,thecourtmustview therecordasa whole and draw al1reasonable inferences in the light mostfavorable to the nonm oving party. Celotex,477U.S.at322-24;Shaw v.Stroud,13F.3d 791,798(4th Cir.1994). However,the nonmovingparty may notrely on beliefs,conjecture,speculation,orconclusory allegationsto g To the extent that M ilgrim makes a retaliation claim based on his transfer from N ottoway ' CorrectionalCenterClNottoway'')to Buckingham CorrectionalCenter(ttBuckingham''),lconcludethat thisclaim wastransferredtotheEasternDistrictofVirginia.(EECF 4lq). 2 defeatamotionforsummaryjudgment.Baberv.Hosp.Corp.ofAm.,977F.2d 872,874-75(4th Cir.1992). lnstead,thenonmovingparty mustproduceSisigrlificantlyprobative''evidencefrom which areasonablejtlry couldrettmlaverdictin hisfavor. AbcorCorp.v.AM Int'l.Inc.,916 F.2d924,930(4thCir.1990)(quotingAnderson,477U.S.at249-50). M ilgrim is proceeding pro K and,thus,entitled to a liberalconstruction ofthe pleading. . See,e.a.,Erickson v.Pardus,551 U.S.89,90-95 (2007). However,tçlpjrinciples requiring generous constnzction of pro K complaints are not ...without lim its.'' . Beaudettv.City of . Hnmpton,775 F.2d 1274,1278 (4th Cir.1985). I$A cotlrtconsidering a motion gforsummary judgmentq can choose to begin by identifying pleadingsthat,because they are no more than conclusions,are notentitled to the assllm ption of truth.'' Ashcroftv.Iqbal,556 U .S.662,679 (2009). (tTostateaclaim underj 1983,aplaintiffmustallegetheviolation ofarightsecuredby the Constitm ion and laws ofthe United States,and m ustshow thatthe alleged deprivation was committedbyaperson actingundercolorofstatelaw.''W estv.Atkins,487U.S.42,48(1988). Notably,a plaintiffmustsuftk iently allege a defendant'spersonalactoromission leading to a deprivation ofa federalright. SeeFisherv.W ashincton M etro.Area TransitAuthor.,690 F.2d 1133,1142-43 (4thCir.1982)(abrogatedon othergrotmdsby Ctv.ofRiversidev.M cLaughlin, 500U.S.44 (1991)).Negligentdeprivationsarenotactionabletmderj 1983.See.e.:.,Daniels v.W illiams,474U.S.327,330 (1986);Pinkv.Lester,52F.3d73,77(4thCir.1995). 3 I 111. A . M edicalTreatm ent The uncontested evidence establishesthatM ilgrim is confined atBuckinghnm ,a prison facility operatedby VirginiaDepartmentofCorrections($çVDOC''). M ilgrim wastransferredto Buckinghnm from Nottoway on January 29,2016. Follow ing M ilgrim 's transfer to Buckingham , on January 29, 2016, the m edical staff conductedanlntrasystem TransferM edicalReview.(SeeShippAff.1,EECFNo.59-1j).Milgrim receives treatm ent and m edication for a chronic cardiac condition, hypertension, diabetes, allergies,and otherailments. tLd.. aat2-3).PerVDOC OperatingProcedtlre($çOP''),M ilgrim has follow up appointm ents approxim ately every six months forhis chrorlic care conditions. See VDOC OP 720.2F )(2). On Febnzary 10, 2016, M ilgrim was seen for his first chronic care appointm ent at Buckinghnm. (Shipp Aff.3). M ilgrim reported chest pains atthat appointment and was transported toVCU Pauley HeartCenterforevaluation and treatment. (1d.) AtVCU,M ilgrim receivedtwostentimplants.(SeeAm.Compl.17,EECFNo.40j). OnJuly 22,2016,Decem ber28,2016,andJune23,2017,M ilgrim wasseenforhischronic careappointments.(ShippAff.3-5).Asaresult,doctorsandnursepractitionersconductedvarious lab testsandmademodifcationsto M ilgrim'streatmentplan. (1d.) DuringM ilgrim'schronic careappointm enton January4,2018,herequested to seean eyedoctorand wasscheduledforthe next available appointment. (Id.at6;Am.Compl. 15). M ilgrim failed to make that eye appointmentonM ay 15,2018.(ShippAff.7).4 4M ilgrim assertshewasnottold abouttheeyedoctorappointm enton M ay 15,2018.Nurse Shipp, in heraffidavit,stated thatM ilgrim wason them asterpasslistand thelistwasdistributed. Tothe extentit can be construed that M ilgrim claims thatthe delay in his seeing an eye doctor is the cause of the constitutionalviolation,the plaintiffmustalso demonstrate thatthe delay in medicaltreatmentcaused the 4 OnJuly 20,2018,M ilgrim wasseen forhisnextchroniccareappointment.Heaskedagain toseeaneyedoctorandwasscheduledforthenextavailableappointment.ILIJ=)Aftersubmitting an informalgrievance aboutm issing hisfrsteyedoctorappointmentand theurgency ofhisneed toseetheeyedoctor,M ilgrim metwithM ajorGoldmanonAugust1,2018.M ajorGoldmantold M ilgrim hewould tl'y to scheduleM ilgrim foran eyedoctorappointmentin Septemberdueto the high voltlm e of inm ates requesting eye doctor appointm ents. O n Septem ber 17,2018,M ilgrim saw the eyedoctoratBuckingham and wasreferred to a specialistatVCU.SinceN ovember13, 2018,M ilgrim hasseen thespecialistatVCU fortreatmentatleastthreetim es. Tostateaclaim fordenialofm edicalcareorinadequatem edicaltreatmenttmdertheEighth Am endm ent, an inm ate m ust allege facts sufficient to dem onstrate deliberate indifference to a seriousneed. SeeEstellev.Gamble,429U.S.97,104-05(1976).Deliberateindifferenceto a seriousmedicalneed requiresproofthat,objectively,theprisonerwassuffering from a serious medicalneedandthat,subjectively,prisonstaffwereawareoftheneedformedicalattentionbut failed eitherto provide itorensure the needed care wasavailable.See Farmerv.Brennam 511 U.S.825,837(1994).Disagreementsbetween aninmateandthemedicalstaffoverdiagnosisor com seoftreatm entarenotcognizableconstitutionalclaimsundertheEighth Am endment.W richt plaintiff ç<substantial harm .'' See Barley v. New River Valley Regional Jail M edical D ept., N o. 7:l6CV00280,2017U.S.Dist.LEXIS 30782,2017W L 888367,at*5(W .D.Va.M ar.6,2017)(quoting M atav.Saiz,427F.3d745,751(10thCir.2005));seealsoW ebbv.Hamidullah,281F.App'x 159,166- 67& n.13(4thCir.2008)(explaininjthatwhereanEighthAmendmentclaim ispredicatedonadelayin theprovision ofmedicalcare,theplalntiffmustdemonstratetlthatthedelayresultedinsubstantialharm''). Here,M ilgrim fails to plead the necessary factsto dem onstrate thathe has suffered any substantialharm duetothedelayorthatsuchdelaywascausedbythedefendantsinthiscase.First,themajority ofthe events and delays thatM ilgrim describes relating to his eye care in prison occurred atNottoway and involved officialsatthatfacility,See Compl.14-15. A sstated,lhave transferred hisclaims aboutthose eventsto the Eastern D istrictfordisposition. Second,M ilgrim failsto plead sufficientfactsshowing that N urse Shipp,or any other defendant,was involved in causing delay of medicalcare while he was at Buckingham.Finally,M ilgrim hasfailedtopleadaninjurycausedbythedelay. v.Collins,766F.2d 841,849(4th Cir.1985).Questionsofmedicaljudgmentarenotsubjectto judicialreview.Russellv.Sheffer,528F.2d318(4thCir.1975). BecauseM ilgrim 'sdiabetesand cardiaccondition constitutea sufficiently seriousm edical need,the question is whether the defendants acted with the requisite subjective deliberate indifference tow ards M ilgrim 's m edicalneeds. W ith respect to Nurse Shipp,the only nnmed m edicalprofessionaldefendant,M ilgdm doesnotplead sufficientfactsto dem onstrate thatshe failed to provide orensure the needed care was available or thatshe acted with $(a suffkiently culpable state ofmind.'' Scinto v.Stansben'v,841F.3d 219,225 (4th Cir.2016). M ilgrim's allegation thatN urse Shipp failed to provide life-sustaining cardiac m edication is conclusory and tm supported by facts. See A m .Com pl.12. His vague generalizations fail to dem onstrate that NurseShippCtacmally lcnew ofanddisregardedasubstantialriskofseriousinjury ...orthatshe actually knew ofand ignored a ...seriousneed formedicalcare.'' Goodm an v.Runion,676 F. App'x 156,159(4thCir.2017)(quotingYotmcv.CityofM t.Rnnier,238F.3d567,576(4th Cir. 2001:. The evidence demonstratesthatNurseShipp,in herlim ited role ashealth careproviderto M ilgrim ,follow ed the direction ofthe treating physiciansw hen dispensing m edication to M ilgrim , and that she responded to grievances pursuant to VDOC policy. ln fact, one of the ntlrses supervised by Nurse Shipp responded to a grievance,directing M ilgrim thathe mustsubmita requestfor an eye appointm ent as itw as not partof his cluonic care treatm ent. See Exh.47,at 209 (ECF 71-1q.Milgrim may disagreewiththetreatmentthatNurseShippprovided,butsucha disagreementisinsuo cientto stateaconstitutionalclaim. SeeScinto,841F.3d at225 (sdmere disagreem ent between an inm ate and a physician over the inm ate's proper m edicalcare are not actionableabsentexceptionalcircllmstances.'). AsforDirectorClazke and W arden Booker,M ilgrim doesnotallege thatthey personally pM icipated in his m edical treatm ent. Claims of inadequate m edical care under the Eighth Amçndmentagainsta non-m edicalprison officialrequire facts showing thatthe defeùdantwas personally involved w ith denialoftreatm ent,ortacitly authorized orw asindifferentto them edical provider'smisconduct. M iltierv.Beom 896F.2d 848,854 (4th Cir.1990)(ovenuled on other groundsbyFarmerv.Brerman,511U.S.825(1994));Smithv.Ban'y,985F.2d 180,184(4thCir. 1993). lnstead,Milgrim attemptsto holdDirectorClarkeand W ardenBookerculpableasnonmedicalprison ofticialsin theircapacity asSllipp'ssupervisors.A supervisoryofficermay notbe held liable merely under a theory ofrespondeatsuperiorin a j1983 action. See M onellv. DepartmentofSocialServices,436 U.S.658,690-92 (1978)9Shaw v.Stroud,13 F.3d 791,799 (4th Cir.1994). Rather,supervisory liability requiresfactsshowing:(1)thatthedefendantshad actualor cohstructive knowledge thattheir subordinate was engaged in conductthatposed ç$a pervasive and unreasonable risk''ofconstitutionalinjury to M ilgrim;(2)thatthe defendants' response to thatknowledge was so inadequate as to show Cçdeliberate indifference to or tacit authorization ofthe alleged offensivepractices,'';and (3)thattherewasan çsaffirmative causal link''betweenthedefendants'inactionandtheparticularconstitutionalinjurysufferedbyMilgrim. SeeShaw,13F.3d at799.Non-m edicalpersonnelcan rightly rely on theexpertiseoftheprison's doctorsand nursesto determinetheappropriatecourseofm edicalcareforan inm ate'sconditions. M iltier,896 F.2d at854. M ilgrim fails to allege any basis forpersonalor supervisory liability by the non-m edical defendants. Regarding D irectorClarke,M ilgrim relieson conclusory allegationsand failstoplead this claim w ith any specifcity. M ilgrim m erely alleges that D irector Clarke w as aware of M ilgrim 's ongoing condition because ofhisposition,yetdid nothing. H ow ever,M ilgrim fails to 7 establish thatDirectorClarke waspersonally involved in M ilgrim 'sm edicaltreatment.M ilgrim similarly failsto establish thatW arden Bookerwaspersonally involved in histreatm ent.M ilgrim only alleges thatW arden Booker supervised Shipp and could çsrem edy her failures.'' See Am . Compl.2. However,because M ilgrim has failed to establish that Shipp violated M ilgrim 's constitm ionalrights,any claim that W arden Booker is liable As her supervisor mustalso fail. M oreover,Clarkeand BookercouldtrustthemedicaljudgmentofM ilgrim'streating physician regarding the urgency ofM ilgrim 'sneed to see an eye doctororto receive differentmedication for his chronic conditions. Accordingly,the m edicaltreatment claim s against Nurse Shipp, D irector Clarke,and W arden Bookerw illbe dism issed. B . A ccessto Courts M ilgrim 's second claim alleges that GC M eirlhard and RO Rodriguez denied M ilgrim accessto courts. M ilgrim assertsthatGC M eirlhard ttengaged in acampaign ofharassmentthat includes,butis notlim ited to,witness intimidation,threatening a witness,llnlawfully reading, seizing,and destroying evidenceto be filed''in M ilgrim'scases. (Am.Compl.38). Milgrim alleges thatGC M einhard's behavior interfered with his ability to procure sworn testim ony in supportofthisaction and aV irginiastatehabeascorpuspetition.M ilgrim 'sonly com plaintagainst RO Rodriguez is that she supelwised GC M einhard and upheld GC M einhard's grievance decisions.(Am.Compl.12,37). An access to the courts claim çGm ust state w ith specifcity the underlying cause ofaction, whether anticipated orlost,and m ustalso identify a rem edy thatm ay be aw arded as recom pense butnot otherwise available in som e suitthatm ay yetbe brought.'' H opkins v.Clarke,Case N o. 16CV00210,.2016U.S.Dist.LEXIS 144446,at*5,2016W L 6092719,at*2(W .D.Va.Oct.19, 2016);Striclclerv.W aters,989 F.2d 1375,1384 (4th Cir.1993)(holdingthattheprisonerhad a 8 Gtbasicrequirementthatheshow specifichnrm orprejudicefrom theallegedly denied access'). Here,with respectto GC M einhard,M ilgrim relies on conclusory allegations.He failsto plead this claim w ith any speciûcity orto identify a resulting hal' m . M ilgrim allegesthatGC M einhard destroyedatyped aftidavit,buthealso acknowledgesthatafterrewritingtheaffidavit,hewasable to submititasevidenceinthisaction.(Am.Compl.43).M ilgrim alsoarguesthatherequested and wasdenied accessto hismedicalrecordsbyGC M einhard.Therecord indicatesthatM ilgrim received copiesofhism edicalrecordsatleast18tim esbetween January 29,2016 and August14, 2018.(ShippAff.1-7).M ilgrim doesnotidentifyanyspecificdocumentfrom therecordthathe wasunabletoprocureorthatlack ofsuchdocum entcausedparticularharm tohislitigation efforts. Milgdm alsofailstopleadanyinjuryresultingfrom GC M einhard'spolicyforinmatestosignin and outofthelaw library. M ilgrim also failsto assertaplausibleclaim ofsupervisory liability againstRO Rodriguez. M ilgrim claim sthatRO Rodriguezwasaware ofGC M einhard'sactions,becauseRO Rodriguez responded to M ilgrim 's com plaints. Simply tsruling against a prisoner on an administrative complaintdoesnotcauseorcontributeto Eaconstitutionaljviolation.''Georgev.Smith,507F.3d 605,609-10 (7thCir.2007).M orever,M ilgrim'sspeculativeand conclusoryallegationsthatRO Rodriguez worked with GC M einhard to retaliate againstM ilgrim are notsupported by facts. Conclusoryallegationsofretaliation cnnnotsupportanactionablej 1983claim .Adamsv.R-ice, 40F.3d72,74(4th Cir.1994). Forthe reasons stated,M ilgrim hasfailed to presentfacts on which he could persuade the fact snder thatthe defendants' actions violated his rightto access the courts. Therefore,I w ill grantdefendants'motionforsummazyjudgmentastothisclaim. GrievanceProcedtlre M ilgrim alleges that the defendants violated VDOC policies regarding grievance and appealprocedures. W hile state regulationsm ay provide form ore stringentproceduralprotections thantheConstimtionrequires,$çastate'sfailuretoabideby itsown 1aw astoproceduralprotections isnotafederaldueprocessissue.''Brown v.Alwelone,938F.Supp.340,344 (W .D.Va.1996) (citing lkiccio v.Countv ofFairfax,907 F.2d 1459,1469 (4th Cir.1990)). Moreover,Cçthe Constitution creates no entitlem ent to grievance procedures or access to any such procedure voluntarily estqblished by a state.''Adams,40 F.3d at75. Therefore,M ilgrim hasno cognizable j 1983 claim againstthe defendants for the VDOC policy violations alleged in this claim . Accordingly,Iwillgrantdefendants'motionforsllmmaryjudgmentastothisclaim . D . PLM M ilgrim m akes a generalclaim thatthe PLR A violatesthe EqualProtection Clause ofthe United States Constitution. M ilgrim asserts thatthe sole purpose ofthe PLRA is ççto reduce governmentworkload,save money,save time,and gives the governm ent an tmconstitm ionally unfairadvantage in litigation filed againstthem.'' (Am.Compl.50). The Fourth Circuithas reviewedthePLRA undertherationalbasistestanddeterminedthatthePLRA'Sçsequalprotection question is not a close one. The legislative solution is entirely rational,does notviolate any fundnmentalrights,and doesnotsingle outa suspectclassfordisparatetreatment. W etherefore holdthePLRA nmendmentsto28U.S.C.j 1915tobeconstitutional.''Rollerv.Gllnn,107F.3d 227,234(4thCir.1997);seealsoW ilkinsv.Gaddv,734F.3d344,351(4thCir.2013)(Upholding theconstitutionality ofthePLlkA'Scap on attorney fees). Accordingly,lconcludeM ilgrim has notstatedaclaim uùderj 1983. lV . Forthe foregoing reasons,Iwillgrantdefendants'motion forsummaryjudgment. An appropriate orderwillenterherewith. TheClerk isdirectedtosend copiesofthism em orandum opinion andaccompanying order totheparties. EN TER : This = day ofJuly,2019. ( t e ' rUnited StatesDistrictJudge
]]>
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.
