Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Clark v. Banks

United States District Court, S.D. Mississippi, Southern Division

January 2, 2018

IRVIN KENNETH CLARK PLAINTIFF
v.
JACQUELINE BANKS, Supt., R. WOODALL, MD, and MIKE HATTEN, Medical Director DEFENDANTS

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          JOHN C. GARGIULO, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

         BEFORE THE COURT are two motions for summary judgment: the Motion for Summary Judgment Based on Sovereign and Qualified Immunity (ECF No. 42) filed by Defendants Jacqueline Banks and Mike Hatten, and the Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 46) filed by Defendant R. Woodall. Plaintiff filed a respective response in opposition to each (ECF No. 50); (ECF No. 52), Defendant Woodall filed a Rebuttal (ECF No. 55), and Plaintiff thereafter filed a Sur-Reply (ECF No. 56). Having considered the submissions of the parties, the record as a whole, and relevant law, the undersigned recommends that the Motion for Summary Judgment Based on Sovereign and Qualified Immunity (ECF No. 42), filed by Jacqueline Banks and Mike Hatten, and the Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 46), filed by R. Woodall, both be GRANTED.

         I. BACKGROUND

         A. Procedural History

         Plaintiff Irvin Kenneth Clark is a prisoner in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections (“MDOC”) housed at South Mississippi Correctional Institution (“SMCI”) in Leakesville, Mississippi. He filed his Complaint (ECF No. 1) on June 16, 2016, brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that Defendants violated his Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. He seeks a court-ordered MRI of his shoulder and $50, 000 in damages from each defendant. (ECF No. 1, at 4). Plaintiff proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis.

         On January 18, 2017, the Court held an omnibus hearing, [1] during which Plaintiff supplemented the allegations in his Complaint. See Minute Entry Jan. 18, 2017; Transcript of Omnibus Hearing (ECF No. 44). The Court also granted Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint (ECF No. 34) during the hearing, by which Plaintiff attached to his Complaint two additional sick call requests he had made since filing suit. See Text Order Jan. 19, 2017. Defendants thereafter filed the instant motions for summary judgment (ECF No. 42), (ECF No. 46) with supporting memoranda. (ECF No. 43); (ECF No. 47).

         B. Plaintiff's Allegations

         Plaintiff alleges that, in November 2015, he began to experience “pain and discomfort” in his left shoulder. (ECF No. 1, at 4). He testified at the omnibus hearing that this pain was likely related to the fact that his shoulder had been reconstructed in 1985 after he suffered a gunshot to his left arm and/or shoulder. See (ECF No. 44, at 13-14). As a result of the shoulder pain, Plaintiff says that he went to medical and was seen by Nurse Practitioner Woodland, who ordered an x- ray of his shoulder. (ECF No. 1, at 4). In a written correspondence dated December 11, 2015, Woodland notified Plaintiff that there was “a variance” in his x-ray, which would be discussed with Plaintiff during his next clinic visit. Id. at 4; (ECF No. 1-3, at 1).

         He says that he was next seen by Dr. McCleave, who referred Plaintiff to be seen by an outside specialist at Southern Bone and Joint in Jackson, Mississippi. (ECF No. 1, at 4); (ECF No. 44, at 12). Plaintiff testified that “[m]onths passed without the reference being fulfilled, ” so he again reported to sick call and was seen by Defendant Dr. Woodall on February 27, 2016. (ECF No. 1, at 4). He says Dr. Woodall administered a “shot” for “tendonitis with deltoid, ” but that this did not help. (ECF No. 44, at 12). He says Dr. Woodall told him that the delay in Plaintiff seeing a specialist was due to the fact that Woodall was “waiting on Jackson to fulfill the MRI request.” Id. Plaintiff states that the next time he reported to medical he saw Dr. McCleave again, who explained that “the reason [Plaintiff] hadn't went to Jackson, the reason [he] hadn't been to Southern Bone & Joint, to have the MRI performed [was] because the guy that does the offsites quit, and they didn't have nobody to fill the reference.” Id. (all sic in original).

         Plaintiff testified that he received two additional x-rays, one each ordered by Dr. McCleave and Dr. Woodall, in April and May of 2016, and the three x-rays produced conflicting results, suggesting that a bone spur appeared between the first two x-rays, and that the spur had been removed between the second and third x-rays. Id. at 21-24, 26-29. However, Plaintiff said he did not undergo any medical procedure to remove the spur. Id. at 28-29. Plaintiff said that he was frequently seen by medical staff throughout March, April, and May of 2016 and, during those visits, was offered additional shots for pain (which he refused) and prednisone for swelling. Id. at 21-25. Plaintiff stated that, on May 11, 2016, Woodland told him that nothing else could be done for his arm besides these pain-management options. Id. at 25.

         Plaintiff asserts that he repeatedly went to medical and repeatedly asked about when he would be taken to have an MRI in order to determine the cause of his arm pain and restricted arm movement, but that he has yet to have an MRI of his arm or otherwise visit with a specialist. Id. at 13. He states that the pain and limited range of motion in his arm persist. (ECF No. 1, at 5). Plaintiff asserts that Defendant Banks, the superintendent of SMCI, knew of his ongoing medical problem but “failed to solve the situation.” Id. He says that he wrote her a letter explaining his unsuccessful attempts to fix his shoulder pain on April 22, 2016 and she responded in writing, instructing Plaintiff to “submit a request to medical.” Id. at 5-6.

         Plaintiff asserts that Defendant Woodall, as the “senior physician” at SMCI, “has not insured[sic] that the Plaintiff be seen by the Southern Bone and Joint Clinic as was request (ordered) by Doctor McCleave.” Id. at 6. He also asserts that Dr. Woodall lowered the dosage of his chronic pain medication in retaliation for filing this lawsuit. (ECF No. 44, at 30). However, he conceded at the omnibus hearing that he did not file any administrative grievance with regard to this retaliation claim before filing his Complaint. Id. at 31-32. He makes this concession again in his Memorandum in Opposition to Woodall's Motion for Summary Judgment. See (ECF No. 53, at 1).

         Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Hatten, the medical director at SMCI, has shown deliberate indifference to Plaintiff's medical treatment through his attitude and actions. (ECF No. 1 at 7-8). Specifically, Plaintiff maintains, “After informing Mr. Hatten of my medical problem[, ] he stated[, ] ‘You've finish[ed] the grievance process take us to court, I don't care.'” Id. at 7.

         II. DISCUSSION

         A. Legal Standards

         a. Summary Judgment Standard

         Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a) provides that summary judgment is appropriate “if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). “When the moving party has carried its burden under Rule 56(c), its opponent must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts.” Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986). “[T]he nonmovant must go beyond the pleadings and ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.