Rhudy v. Winston et al, No. 7:2018cv00220 - Document 27 (W.D. Va. 2019)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Senior Judge Glen E. Conrad on 2/7/2019. (tvt)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
ctE- s oFylcE u. s.DlsT.c0ur AT ROANOKE,VA FILED FE2 2? 2219 IN TH E UNITED STA TES D ISTR ICT CO URT FOR THE W ESTERN UISTRICT OF W RGINIA R O ANO K E DIW SIO N R AND ALL SCO TT R H UDY , JULW C.. 8K D CA SE NO .7:18CV 00220 Plaintiff, M EM O R AN DUM O PINION By: H on.G len E.Conrad SeniorU nited States DistrictJudge GREGORY P.W INSTON,c AL., D efendants. Randall ScottRhudy,a Virginia inmate proceeding pro K ,Gled this civilrights action . under42 U.S.C.j1983,alleging thatthedefendantjailofficialsdenied him accesstomedical care'. A fterreview ofthe record,the courtconcludesthatthisaction m ustbe dism issed asm oot. 1. AtthetimeRhudy filedhisj1983claimsinmid-May2018,hewasconfined attheNew ' RiverValleyRegionalJail(Ejail'').HesuesGregoryP.W inston,Superintendentofthejail,and Lisa Ferguson,its head nurse. He com plains thattGittook 1 % months to see D r.afterw riting everyweekandtold(heqwason list,''andnoonehadGidoneanythingtohelp''him,althoughhe w as Ssstill very sick.'' Com pl. 2, ECF N o. 1. A s relief in this case, Rhudy asks only for appropriate m edicalcare. Since filing the Com plaint,Rhudy hassubm itted additionaldocum entsthatthe courtw ill construe and grantas am endm ents,ECF N os.6,21,23,and 24. Taken as a whole,and liberally construed,Rhudy's subm issions indicàte the follow ing sequence of e'vents related to his claim s. Rhudy v. Winston et al Doc. 27 Rhudy statesthathisEçliverand/orgallbladder(wasjenlarged& inbadshape.'' Compl.2,ECF N o.1. H e underwent an ultrasound in February 2018 and w as to have follow -up visits with the doctor. Rhudy w rote m edicalrequestson February 28,M arch 8,14,and 27,and again on A pril 3, 2018, asking to see the doctor; he stated that he w as çtstill hurting bad,'' getting sick and Dockets.Justia.com ,, throw ing up,and experiencing a taste like blood when he coughed. M ot.A m .1,4-7,ECF N o. 21. To each request,a staffm em berresponded thatRhudy w ason the listto see the doctor. On April 17,2018,Rhudy complained thathe wasçEstillhurting bad.'' 1d.at2. The response asked him for m ore inform ation about whatw as hurting. On April30,2018,Rhudy filed a request, noting thathe had pain underthe rightside ofhis rib cage and breastbone thatm ade itdifficult to breathe. The staffresponse indicated thathe wasKtplaced on sick call''thatsam e day. Id.at3. On July 9,22 and 25,2018,Rhudy filed requests asking to see the doctor. H e indicated that on June 27,2018,a doctor had ordered an ECH IDA scan and blood work''thathad notyet been done. Id.at8;M ot.Am .1-2,ECF N o.23. The staffresponses stated thatthese tests had been scheduled. They also indicated that Rhudy had been prescribed and was receiving a m edication for his stom ach pain. On August 21,2018, Rhudy com plained that his pain w as getting w orse and spreading and that Prilosec and Zantac w ere not helping. The response indicated that he w as scheduled to see a m edicalprovider. A dditional materials from Rhudy indicate that in October and N ovember,he discovçred a lcnot on his breastbone and feared he had'a hernia. He w as frustrated thatthe m edicalstaffdid notact more quickly to addressthese issues. On N ovem ber28,2018,the courtreceived notice thatRhudy had been transferred to a stateprison. 1I. <I(1jfaneventoccurswhileacaseispending...thatmakesitimpossibleforthecourtto grantanyeffecmalreliefwhateverto aprevailingparty,theEcase)mustbedismissed,''because federalcourts have ç<no authority to give opinionsupon m ootquestions or abstractpropositions, orto declare principles or rules of law w hich cannotaffectthe m atter in issue in the case before it.'' Church ofScientologv ofCal.v.United States,506 U.Sk9,12 (1992)(internalquotation 2 marksomitted). Itiswellestablishedthataprisoner'stransferorreleasefrom aparticularjail mootshisclaimsforinjunctiveanddeclaratoryreliefwithrespecttohisincarcerationthere.See Incumaav.Ozmint,507F.3d281,286-87(4thCir.2007);W illiamsv.Griffin,952F.2d 820,823 (4th'Cir.1991) (holding that inmate's transfer rendered moot his claims for injunctive and declaratoryrelieg. As stated,the only form ofreliefthatRhudy seeks in this case is injunctive relief, ordering the defendants to provide him access to appropriate m edicalcare. Because Rhudy has beentransferredaway from thejail,thedefendantsno longerhaveauthoritytoprovidehilp with m edicalcare. Accordingly,the courtconcludesthatthe casem ustbe dism issed as m oot. In any event, Rhudy's subm issions provide facts that do not support his conclusory j1983 claim thatno oneprovided him medicalattention atthejail. Section 1983 permitsan aggrieved party to 5le a civilaction against a person for actions taken undercolor of state 1aw thatviolatedhisconstitutionalrights.Cooperv.Sheehan,735F.3d 153,158(4thCir.2013).To stateaconstitutionalclaim concerninghiscourseofmedicalcare,Rhudymustshow,objectively, that'hehadaseriousmedicalneedfordifferenttreatmentthanhereceived,andsubjectively,that the defendant knew of a substantial risk of harm that m edical need presented and responded unreasonably to it. Farmerv.Brennan.511U.S.825,834-37(1994). A showingofdeliberate indiiference requires showing more than mere negligence, errors in judgment, inadvertent oversights,ordisagreem entsaboutthe propertreatm entplan. Jackson v.Liahtsev,775 F.3d 170, 178(4thCir.2014)(citingFanner,511U.S.at837)). W hile Rhudy was at the jail,he did receive medicalattention. Nurses responded promptly to his m any written requests for m edical evaluation. He received an ultrasound and m edications,and a doctorordered blood work and a m edicalstudy atan outside facility. Rhudy 3 cleely dlsapees w1111the timing and the numbprofdodorvisitsprovided k)him . However, notblng in the record suggeststhathismedicalcare atthejailwasdiso possly incompetent, . ' 1. inadequate,orexcessivemqto shock the conscienceorto beintolerableto fnndnmentalfslrness,'' somstobeacionabletmdertheEighth Amendment'sdeliberateindlfferencem ndard.M lltierv. Beorm 896F.2d848,851(4thCir.1990),overrnledinpartonotherFoundsbvFsrmer.511U.S. at 837. M oreover,the defendnnts- who are not medical dodors- ould riglltly rely on the me caljud> ent of Rhudy's treatlng physlclans regarding the appropdate number and gequency of doctor visits,the urgency for additlonaltests,and the types of medlcations to presH be.JJ-. -at854. 111. Forthe reasons stated,the courtconcludesthatthlsacion mustbe dlqmlssed as moot. Thus,the defendqnts'möGon to dlsmlssmustalso bedsmissed asmoot. An appropdate order wi 'll.iss'uetltlsday. The clerk willsend a copy ofthism emorandum opinion and the accompanying orderto M udy andcounselofrecord forthedefendants. ENTER :This 7W day ofFebraary , 2019. SeiiorUnitedStatesDisdctJudge 4
]]>
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.
