MARK E. FULLER, District Judge.
This action is brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for constitutional violations of Plaintiff Brittany S. Cooper's ("Plaintiff" or "Cooper") Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights while she was an inmate at Bullock Correctional Facility in Union Springs, Alabama. Plaintiff seeks declaratory relief and monetary damages
This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the claims in this action under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 (federal question) and 1343 (civil rights). The parties do not contest personal jurisdiction or venue, and the Court finds adequate allegations in support of both.
Under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, summary judgment is appropriate "if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). The party asking for summary judgment "always bears the initial responsibility of informing the district court of the basis for its motion, and identifying those portions of `the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any,' which it believes demonstrates the absence of a genuine issue of material fact." Id. at 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548. The movant can meet this burden by presenting evidence showing there is no dispute of material fact, or by showing the nonmoving party has failed to present evidence in support of some element of its case on which it bears the ultimate burden of proof. Id. at 322-23, 106 S.Ct. 2548.
Once the moving part has met its burden, the non-moving party must "go beyond the pleadings and by [its] own affidavits, or by the `depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file,' designate `specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.'" Id. at 324, 106 S.Ct. 2548. To avoid summary judgment, the non-moving party "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, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986). On the other hand, a district court ruling on a motion for summary judgment must believe the evidence of the non-movant and must draw all justifiable inferences from the evidence in the non-moving party's favor. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). After the non-moving party has responded to the motion for summary judgment, the district court must grant summary judgment if there is no genuine dispute of material fact and the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c).
On November 14, 2011, this action was removed to federal court from the Circuit Court of Bullock County, Alabama. (Doc. # 2.) Plaintiff's original Complaint asserted claims against Rodgers, Pritchett, and other fictitious parties in their individual and official capacities for violations of her Fourteenth Amendment equal protection and due process rights, deliberate indifference to her serious medical needs in violation
On March 7, 2012, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint, realleging her Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim as well as her Fourteenth Amendment equal protection and due process claims against Rodgers and Pritchett in their individual capacities. (Doc. # 15.) Plaintiff also asserted an individual claim against Rodgers and Pritchett for "Violation of State Law," referencing § 14-6-19 of the Alabama Code. (Doc. # 15.) Defendants moved to dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, and on June 6, 2012, 2012 WL 2050577, the Court dismissed Plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment due process claim, as well as her state law claim under Ala.Code § 14-6-19. (Doc. #21.) Only Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim (Count I) and her Fourteenth Amendment equal protection claim (Count II) are left pending before the Court. (Doc. # 21.)
Defendants have moved for summary judgment on Plaintiff's remaining claims. (Doc. # 35.) As to Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claim, Defendants reassert their entitlement to qualified immunity,
The Court has carefully considered the submissions of the parties in support of and in opposition to the motion. The submissions of the parties, viewed in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, as the non-moving party, establish the following material facts:
In 2007, Plaintiff was convicted of theft of property in the first degree and sentenced to ten years in prison, plus five years probation. Plaintiff was immediately placed on probation following this conviction. On July 22, 2009, Plaintiff was arrested for violating her probation following a criminal mischief conviction and was placed in the Bullock County Jail. On September 9, 2009, Plaintiff's probation was revoked, and she remained in the Bullock County Jail pending transfer to the Alabama Department of Corrections. Defendant Rodgers was the Sheriff of Bullock County, Alabama and Defendant Pritchett was the Jail Administrator/Warden for the
On August 6, 2009, while in the custody of the Bullock County Jail, Plaintiff was taken to a doctor where she tested positive to a pregnancy urinalysis test, similar to an over-the-counter test purchased at a local pharmacy. The doctor ordered that Plaintiff follow up with an OB/GYN for prenatal care. Plaintiff informed the jail of her pregnancy diagnosis that same day.
At the time of her pregnancy test, Plaintiff was experiencing pain in her stomach and lower abdomen, similar to menstrual cramps, which was the reason she thought she may be pregnant. Plaintiff continued to experience this pain intermittently throughout her pregnancy. Other than her urinalysis test, Plaintiff's pregnancy was not confirmed through any other means, such as a blood test, ultrasound, or vaginal exam. Plaintiff also never heard a fetal heartbeat during her pregnancy.
Sometime after September 9, 2009, Plaintiff was placed on house arrest.
Although Plaintiff could not recall any significant medical events that occurred between September 24, 2009, and October 6, 2009, she did recall spotting (i.e., having vaginal bleeding) with pain that began on September 24 or 25, 2009. During this time, Plaintiff's pain was sharp but slight and her bleeding mild, and she continually requested medical assistance from the jailors.
Plaintiff's spotting and pain continued intermittently from September 24 or 25 until October 7, 2009, when her pain worsened and her bleeding became much heavier. Plaintiff's pain on October 7 developed quickly. During her deposition, Plaintiff described the pain as an 8 out of 10, and her vaginal bleeding as very heavy with clumps or clots of blood. At 11:15 on the morning of October 7, Plaintiff complained to Officer R. Thomas about her worsening bleeding and pain. Officer R. Thomas gave Plaintiff some sanitary pads and aspirin and called Rodgers to inform him of the situation. Officer R. Thomas told Plaintiff that Rodgers said Plaintiff better keep the baby inside her until she went back to court. Plaintiff then complained to her aunt, Officer D. Thomas, and she was released at 1:30 p.m. that day to obtain medical care. Plaintiff's mother took her to the emergency room at Baptist Hospital East in Montgomery, Alabama. Plaintiff claims that she was bleeding so heavily on October 7 that she bled through her clothes onto the upholstery of her mother's car while they were driving to the hospital.
Plaintiff arrived at the emergency room at approximately 4:30 p.m. on October 7, 2009. Plaintiff informed the nurse that she was about 14 weeks pregnant and had been experiencing vaginal bleeding for approximately one week. Plaintiff's chief complaint is reflected on the nurse's form as "vaginal bleeding times one week, no clots, little blood." (Doc. # 37-1.) Plaintiff is seen by the emergency room physician, Dr. Wallace Falero, and her chief complaint as reflected on the physician's form is mild "vaginal bleeding," or spotting, for about a week with no pain. Plaintiff's medical records reflect that she was indeed experiencing mild vaginal bleeding
Plaintiff weighed 321 pounds and was suffering from hypertension at the time of her emergency room visit on October 7. An ultrasound was performed on Plaintiff during this visit, which confirmed the absence of fetal tissue but did show an enlarged uterus with a calcified mass. However, because of Plaintiff's weight, the ultrasound was difficult to read and a CT scan was recommended. Accordingly, Plaintiff underwent a CT scan that day,
The undisputed evidence in this case does not provide a definitive date on which Plaintiff miscarried. Plaintiff's treating OB/GYN, Dr. Keith Green ("Dr. Green"), testified that, based on her medical records and his experience, Plaintiff's miscarriage could have occurred anywhere between July 31, 2009, and September 23, 2009,
Plaintiff's medical records markedly contrast her deposition testimony. The medical records from Plaintiff's emergency room visit on October 7, 2009, reflect that her pain was only a 2 (not an 8) on a scale of 10 and that her vaginal bleeding was light/mild with little to no pain. Her medical records from that visit further reflect that Plaintiff had been experiencing this bleeding for only a week with no mention of blood clots or clumps and no mention of previous bleeding abnormalities. Plaintiff claimed in her deposition that she told the medical staff at Baptist East the truth and that any inconsistencies between her testimony
While Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint alleges that she was "forced to suffer excruciating pain and excessive bleeding" as she waited to receive medical care, the actual evidence before the Court, including Plaintiff's deposition testimony and her affidavit, demonstrates that the injury forming the basis of Plaintiff's deliberate indifference claim is her alleged miscarriage. Plaintiff blames Defendants for her miscarriage because she was in the Bullock County Jail at the time it happened. Plaintiff claims that the stress she was under while in jail, the lack of medical care, and the lack of nutritious foods caused her miscarriage. However, there is no evidence before the Court demonstrating that Plaintiff suffered a miscarriage while in the custody of the Bullock County Jail. Even if there were, there is no evidence that Defendants caused or contributed in any way to Plaintiff's miscarriage, whether through a failure to provide prenatal care, by not feeding her fruits and other nutritious foods, by causing her stress, or by having her mop the floors. There is also no evidence indicating that any measures could have been taken by Defendants to prevent Plaintiff's miscarriage.
As previously noted, the Court determined that Defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claim at the motion to dismiss stage. However, the Court indicated in its Order that if the facts developed in a manner inconsistent with the allegations in the Amended Complaint, it would revisit its qualified immunity analysis. (Doc. # 21.) Defendants' summary judgment motion, and the evidence supporting it, indicate that the facts developed in such a manner here. Thus, the Court will reexamine whether Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim.
The doctrine of qualified immunity provides that government officials who
Given the above, the first issue the Court must resolve is whether Defendants were acting within the scope of their discretionary authority when the alleged violation of Plaintiff's constitutional rights occurred. An official claiming qualified immunity will be considered to have acted within his discretionary authority if he demonstrates "objective circumstances which would compel the conclusion that his actions were undertaken pursuant to the performance of his duties and within the scope of his authority." Rich v. Dollar, 841 F.2d 1558, 1564 (11th Cir.1988). Courts should not be "overly narrow" in interpreting this requirement. Jordan v. Doe, 38 F.3d 1559, 1566 (11th Cir.1994). Instead, "a court must ask whether the act complained of, if done for a proper purpose, would be within, or reasonably related to, the outer perimeter of an official's discretionary duties." Harbert Intern., Inc. v. James, 157 F.3d 1271, 1282 (11th Cir. 1998). "[T]he determination that an officer was acting within his discretionary authority is quite a low hurdle to clear." Godby v. Montgomery Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 996 F.Supp. 1390, 1401 (M.D.Ala.1998).
Plaintiff alleges in her First Amended Complaint that Defendants were "at all times relevant hereto acting as instrumentalities of the Executive Branch of the Government in the state of Alabama" and that they "interacted with the Plaintiff in the line and scope of their duties." (Doc. # 15, ¶¶ 5, 11.) While Plaintiff argues for the first time in her opposition to Defendants' summary judgment motion that Defendants were not acting within their discretionary authority at the time her constitutional rights were violated, the Court is not persuaded by this argument. It has long been held that the decision to bestow or deny medical services to prisoners, such as Plaintiff, is a discretionary function for purposes of qualified immunity analysis. See Townsend, 601 F.3d at 1158; Nelson v. Prison Health Servs., Inc., 991 F.Supp. 1452, 1461 (M.D.Fla. 1997). Accordingly, the Court finds that Defendants Rodgers and Pritchett were acting within the scope of their discretionary authority at the time Plaintiff's constitutional rights were allegedly violated. Therefore, Defendants are entitled to the defense of qualified immunity unless
Deliberate indifference to a prisoner's serious medical needs is a violation of the Eighth Amendment.
Plaintiff has met her burden as to both the objective and subjective elements of her deliberate indifference claim. First, the evidence, taken in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, establishes that she was suffering from a serious medical need. "A medical need that is serious enough to satisfy the objective component `is 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. (quoting Hill v. Dekalb Reg'l Youth Det. Ctr., 40 F.3d 1176, 1187 (11th Cir.1994)). Plaintiff claims that she experienced spotting and pain throughout her pregnancy, and that her bleeding became so heavy and her pain so intense on October 7, 2009, that she had to seek emergency medical attention, at which time she learned that she had suffered a miscarriage. Prolonged vaginal bleeding, particularly when accompanied by pain, is a serious medical condition that is indeed "so obvious that even a lay person would easily recognized the necessity for a doctor's attention." See Goebert, 510 F.3d at 1326-27; Townsend, 601 F.3d at 1158; Archer v. Dutcher, 733 F.2d 14, 17 (2nd Cir.1984); Pool v. Sebastian Cnty., 418 F.3d 934, 944-45 (8th Cir.2005). While Defendants attempt to cast Plaintiff's vaginal bleeding and pain in a "routine" light by pointing to evidence that Plaintiff did not request medical attention specifically for her vaginal bleeding, but rather made general requests to see an OB/GYN for prenatal care, Plaintiff's failure to be overly specific or to use detailed nomenclature in requesting to see a doctor does not lessen the seriousness of her medical condition. This is particularly true when Plaintiff's testimony reveals that she believed her almost daily requests to see an OB/GYN for prenatal care "covered all of it, over all," including her concerns about her vaginal bleeding and pain. (Doc. # 37-1.)
Second, Plaintiff has met her burden of establishing that Defendants Rodgers and Pritchett acted with deliberate indifference to her serious medical need. To prove that a defendant acted with deliberate indifference to a serious
However, Plaintiff has not carried her burden as to the causation element of her deliberate indifference claim. Like any tort claim, Plaintiff must show that her injury was caused by Defendants' wrongful conduct. See Goebert, 510 F.3d at 1326. In this case, the evidence shows that Plaintiff was pregnant on August 6, 2009, and that she had suffered a complete abortion by October 7, 2009. There is no evidence establishing exactly when Plaintiff suffered her miscarriage, what caused it, or whether Plaintiff was even in the custody of the Bullock County Jail when she miscarried. Plaintiff claims that the stress of being in jail, the lack of prenatal care, and the failure of the jail to feed her fruits and other nutritious foods caused her miscarriage. Yet, other than Plaintiff's own speculation, there is no evidence, much less substantial evidence, to support her contention that Defendants caused her injury in this case — her miscarriage.
Moreover, there is no evidence, medical or otherwise, that Defendants did anything to cause or contribute to Plaintiff's miscarriage. There is no evidence suggesting that, if Plaintiff had been given fruits or other nutritious foods to eat while in jail, or if she been taken to see an OB/GYN the very first time she requested medical care,
Count II of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint asserts a claim against Defendants for violation of her due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants treated her differently than other inmates based upon her gender by failing to provide her the medical care she needed during her pregnancy. However, at summary judgment, Plaintiff conceded her equal protection claim and presented the Court with no substantial evidence to create a genuine dispute of material fact as to this claim. (See Doc. #42, at 11.) Therefore, Defendants' summary judgment motion is due to be granted as to Plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment equal protection claim as alleged in Count II of the First Amended Complaint.
For the reasons stated above, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. #35) is GRANTED, and Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint is dismissed in its entirety. The pretrial hearing and trial in this case is CANCELLED. A final judgment consistent with this Memorandum Order and Opinion will be entered separately.
(Doc. #37-1.)
