Chapman v. Santini ( 2020 )

FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALSFebruary 13, 2020
Christopher M. Wolpert
TENTH CIRCUIT Clerk of Court
SEIFULLAH CHAPMAN,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v. No. 18-1117
(D.C. No. 1:15-CV-00279-WYD-KLM)
GEORGE SANTINI, MD, (D. Colo.)
individually; ANTHONY OSAGIE,
PA, individually; RONALD
CAMACHO, PA, individually,
Defendants - Appellants,
and
FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS,
Defendant.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before HOLMES, McKAY, and CARSON, Circuit Judges.
At all relevant times (approximately February 2013 to August 2015),
Seifullah Chapman was a prisoner at Administrative Maximum (“ADX”) in
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited,
however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th
Cir. R. 32.1.
Florence, Colorado, reputedly the most secure and restrictive prison operated by
the Bureau of Prisons. Mr. Chapman has a severe form of Type 1 diabetes.
While incarcerated at ADX, he was treated by three prison medical professionals:
Dr. George Santini, Anthony Osagie, and Ronald Camacho (the “Medical
Professionals”). In this Bivens action, 1 Mr. Chapman alleges that each Medical
Professional violated the Eighth Amendment by acting with deliberate
indifference to his serious medical needs. The Medical Professionals deny any
wrongdoing and invoke qualified immunity.
We must decide whether the Medical Professionals are entitled to qualified
immunity. In doing so, we must resolve two questions: (1) whether any of the
Medical Professionals violated the Eighth Amendment, and (2) if so, whether
then-extant law clearly established the unconstitutionality of their conduct. In
denying the Medical Professionals’ motion for summary judgment, the district
court answered both questions in the affirmative.
The Medical Professionals appeal from that order. The parties are familiar
with the facts and the procedural history. As to such matters, we offer details
1
In Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics,
403 U.S. 388 (1971), the Supreme Court “recognized for the first time an implied
private action for damages against federal officers alleged to have violated a
citizen’s constitutional rights.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 675 (2009)
(quoting Corr. Servs. Corp. v. Malesko, 534 U.S. 61, 66 (2001)).
2
only in connection with our disposition of the issues presented in this appeal.
Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm.
I
Before we can turn to the merits of the Medical Professionals’ appeal, “we
must first ensure we have jurisdiction.” Perry v. Durborow, 892 F.3d 1116, 1119
(10th Cir. 2018). Mr. Chapman has moved to dismiss this appeal for lack of
appellate jurisdiction. The Medical Professionals respond that we do have
jurisdiction. We agree with the Medical Professionals: we do have jurisdiction.
As a general rule, we lack jurisdiction over denials of summary judgment.
See Plumhoff v. Rickard, 572 U.S. 765, 771 (2014); accord Serna v. Colo. Dep’t
of Corr., 455 F.3d 1146, 1150 (10th Cir. 2006). The collateral-order doctrine is
an exception to that general rule; it allows appellate courts to review “a limited
set of district-court orders” even though the orders are “short of final judgment.”
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 671 (2009) (quoting Behrens v. Pelletier, 516
U.S. 299, 305 (1996)). In particular, orders denying qualified immunity at the
summary-judgment stage qualify for this special jurisdictional treatment, see, e.g.,
Plumhoff, 572 U.S. at 771, but in appeals from such orders, we are limited to
review of “the district court’s abstract legal conclusions,” Felders ex rel. Smedley
v. Malcom, 755 F.3d 870, 878 (10th Cir. 2014); accord Fancher v. Barrientos,
723 F.3d 1191, 1198 (10th Cir. 2013).
3
Notably, we generally lack interlocutory jurisdiction when a district court
denies qualified immunity based on a determination that there are “genuine”
disputes of material fact for trial. Johnson v. Jones, 515 U.S. 304, 319-20 (1995);
see Cox v. Glanz, 800 F.3d 1231, 1242 (10th Cir. 2015) (noting that whether “‘the
pretrial record sets forth a “genuine” issue of fact for trial’ is not an abstract legal
question” (quoting Johnson, 515 U.S. at 320)). An exception to this general rule
applies when a district court fails to specify which factual disputes preclude the
grant of summary judgment based on qualified immunity. See Lewis v. Tripp, 604
F.3d 1221, 1225 (10th Cir. 2010) (“[W]hen the district court at summary
judgment fails to identify the particular charged conduct that it deemed
adequately supported by the record, we may look behind the order denying
summary judgment and review the entire record de novo to determine for
ourselves as a matter of law which factual inferences a reasonable jury could and
could not make.”).
Therefore, “[i]f a district court does not state the facts a reasonable jury
could find at summary judgment, ‘a court of appeals may have to undertake a
cumbersome review of the record to determine [those] facts.’” Id. (quoting
Johnson, 515 U.S. at 319); accord Roosevelt-Hennix v. Prickett, 717 F.3d 751,
756 n.8 (10th Cir. 2013); see Armijo ex rel. Chavez v. Wagon Mound Pub. Sch.,
159 F.3d 1253, 1259 (10th Cir. 1998) (noting that “if the district court concludes
4
that a genuine issue of material fact exists in denying qualified immunity, but
does not set forth with specificity the facts presented by the plaintiff that support
a finding that the defendant violated a clearly established right, then we may look
behind the order denying summary judgment”). “In such circumstances, but only
in such circumstances, we may review the entire record, construing the evidence
in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and determine de novo whether the
plaintiff in fact presented sufficient evidence to forestall summary judgment on
the issue of qualified immunity.” Armijo, 159 F.3d at 1259.
This case requires such a record review. Although the district court denied
summary judgment because of “genuine issues of material facts,” Aplts.’ App.,
Vol. XX, at 3334–35 (Order Den. Summ. J., filed Jan. 25, 2018), it did not
explicitly identify the material facts in dispute. 2 Moreover, this is not a situation
where the defendants dispute our obligation to construe any facts found in the
light most favorable to the plaintiff. Cf. Castillo v. Day, 790 F.3d 1013, 1018
(10th Cir. 2015) (“Although [Defendant] attempts to characterize the issue on
2
The district court identified the following genuine issues of material
fact, without specifying the facts that precluded the grant of summary judgment:
(1) whether the Medical Professionals appropriately administered Mr. Chapman’s
insulin, (2) whether the Medical Professionals provided Mr. Chapman with
appropriate medical supplies to manage his diabetes, and (3) whether the Medical
Professionals appropriately responded to Mr. Chapman’s symptoms and
complaints regarding his Type 1 diabetes and whether Mr. Chapman suffered
serious harm or substantial risk of serious harm. The district court provided no
further detail.
5
appeal as Plaintiffs’ failure to assert a violation of a constitutional right under
clearly established law, her argument is limited to a discussion of her version of
the facts and the inferences that can be drawn therefrom. Thus, [Defendant’s]
argument is actually a challenge to the district court’s conclusion Plaintiffs
presented sufficient evidence to survive summary judgment. As such, this court
lacks jurisdiction to review her appeal at the interlocutory stage.” (emphasis
added) (footnote omitted)). Indeed, the Medical Professionals expressly
acknowledge that “all disputed facts must be resolved in the light favorable to
[Mr. Chapman].” Aplts.’ Resp. to Aplee.’s Mot. to Dismiss at 4 (filed July 26,
2018). And they purport to do so in their opening brief. See Aplts.’ Opening Br.
at 6.
In light of these circumstances, we do have jurisdiction over this
interlocutory appeal. Mr. Chapman’s motion to dismiss is denied. We proceed to
the merits.
II
Qualified immunity “shields officials from civil liability.” Mullenix v.
Luna, --- U.S. ----, 136 S. Ct. 305, 308 (2015) (per curiam). But it is more than
“a mere defense to liability”; it is also “an immunity from suit.” Plumhoff, 572
U.S. at 771–72 (quoting Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231 (2009)). Indeed,
qualified immunity exists largely “to ensure that ‘“insubstantial claims” against
6
government officials [will] be resolved prior to discovery.’” Pearson, 555 U.S. at
231 (alteration in original) (quoting Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 640 n.2
(1987)). That said, the qualified-immunity shield protects officials only when
their “conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional
rights.’” White v. Pauly, --- U.S. ----, 137 S. Ct. 548, 551 (2017) (quoting
Mullenix, 136 S. Ct. at 308). More specifically, a plaintiff may defeat a claim of
qualified immunity by making two showings: First, that “the defendant violated a
constitutional right.” Redmond v. Crowther, 882 F.3d 927, 935 (10th Cir. 2018)
(quoting Koch v. City of Del City, 660 F.3d 1228, 1238 (10th Cir. 2011)). And
second, that “the constitutional right was clearly established.” Id. (quoting Koch,
660 F.3d at 1238).
A constitutional right is clearly established if its contours are “‘sufficiently
clear’ that every ‘reasonable official would [have understood] that what he is
doing violates that right.’” Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731, 741 (2011)
(alteration in original) (quoting Anderson, 483 U.S. at 640). Although the
Supreme Court does “not require a case directly on point, . . . existing precedent
must have placed the statutory or constitutional question beyond debate.” Id.
This purposefully “demanding standard protects ‘all but the plainly incompetent
or those who knowingly violate the law.’” District of Columbia v. Wesby, --- U.S.
7
----, 138 S. Ct. 577, 589 (2018) (quoting Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335, 341
(1986)).
The plaintiff bears the burden to meet each part of the qualified-immunity
test. See id. at 591; accord Riggins v. Goodman, 572 F.3d 1101, 1107 (10th Cir.
2009). We may take up either part first. See Pearson, 555 U.S. at 236. We
review the district court’s legal conclusions—such as whether the defendants
violated a constitutional right and whether that right was clearly established—de
novo. See, e.g., Felders, 755 F.3d at 877.
III
“[E]lementary principles” of humanity embodied in the Eighth Amendment
“establish the government’s obligation to provide medical care for those whom it
is punishing by incarceration.” Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 102–03 (1976).
Prison officials betray that obligation by acting with “deliberate indifference to an
inmate’s serious medical needs.” Mata v. Saiz, 427 F.3d 745, 751 (10th Cir.
2005).
Deliberate indifference has “both an objective and a subjective
component.” Id. (quoting Sealock v. Colorado, 218 F.3d 1205, 1209 (10th Cir.
2000)). To satisfy the objective component, a prisoner must prove that the
alleged deprivation was “sufficiently serious.” Id. (quoting Farmer v. Brennan,
511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994)). A delay in medical care is sufficiently serious if “the
8
delay resulted in substantial harm.” Id. (quoting Oxendine v. Kaplan, 241 F.3d
1272, 1276 (10th Cir. 2001)). “[S]everal hours of untreated severe pain” counts
as substantial harm. Al-Turki v. Robinson, 762 F.3d 1188, 1194 (10th Cir. 2014).
The subjective component requires that a defendant act with “a sufficiently
culpable state of mind.” Redmond, 882 F.3d at 936 (quoting Giron v. Corr. Corp.
of Am., 191 F.3d 1281, 1289 (10th Cir. 1999)). A defendant has the necessary
state of mind if he knew an inmate “faced a substantial risk of harm and
disregarded that risk.” Id. at 939 (quoting Martinez v. Beggs, 563 F.3d 1082,
1088–89 (10th Cir. 2009)). An inmate need not prove the defendant had actual
knowledge of the danger or actually intended that harm befall the inmate. See
Mata, 427 F.3d at 752. Rather, it is enough that circumstantial evidence supports
an inference that a defendant failed to verify or confirm a “risk that he strongly
suspected to exist.” Id. (quoting Farmer, 511 U.S. at 843 n.8).
Construing the record facts in the light most favorable to Mr. Chapman, we
conclude that each Medical Professional violated his Eighth Amendment rights.
By way of overview, Mr. Chapman has a severe form of Type 1 diabetes that
requires specialized medical care. His condition is so dire that his former military
doctor, Dr. Shakir, wrote a letter to future medical providers warning that “Mr.
Chapman is at a very high risk for diabetes ketoacidosis and hypoglycemia” and
that “these disorders have 10 to 15 % [sic] mortality rate[s] if not treated
9
immediately.” Aplee.’s Suppl. App., Vol. VII, at 1021 (Dr. Shakir Letter, dated
Nov. 2, 2012). Adequate treatment, he added, requires at least three, and up to
six, shots of insulin every day. Id. Furthermore, an expert opined that, without
adequate care for his diabetes, Mr. Chapman’s “life is constantly in danger.” Id.,
Vol. VI, at 879 (Expert Report, dated Sept. 7, 2016).
There is considerable record evidence that the Medical Professionals
provided Mr. Chapman with care “dramatically short of medically acceptable
standards of care, even for prisoners.” Id. While at ADX, Mr. Chapman suffered
serious bouts of hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia multiple times a week—often
several days in a row—as well as multiple life-threatening bouts of extreme
hypoglycemia. See id., Vol. XXII, at 2235–80 (BOP Health Services Report, filed
Oct. 10, 2017). 3 As one expert remarked, “[e]very physician knows . . . that
poorly controlled diabetes risks death.” Id. at 2285 (Expert Report, dated Oct. 4,
3
“The normal range for blood sugar levels is between 70 and 180
milligrams per deciliter (mg/dl).” Aplee.’s Suppl. App., Vol. VI, at 869.
“Hyperglycemia occurs when blood sugar levels are too high.” Id. at 870. While
at ADX, Mr. Chapman’s blood sugar levels were frequently in the high 200s and
300s. See id., Vol. XXII, at 2235–80. “Hypoglycemia occurs when blood sugar
levels drop below 70 mg/dl.” Id., Vol. VI, at 869. For a person with Type 1
diabetes, blood sugar levels below 30 mg/dl are life-threatening. Id. at 870. At
this level, “brain damage, loss of consciousness, seizure, and death” may occur.
Id. In a little over two years at ADX, Mr. Chapman’s blood sugar levels were
measured at below 30 mg/dl on approximately ten separate occasions. See id.,
Vol. XXII, at 2235–80. His blood sugar level was measured in the 30s on
approximately twenty-two additional times. See id.
10
2016). Yet, at ADX, Mr. Chapman’s diabetes was so “poorly controlled” that it
may have caused some “brain injury.” See id. In the end, the record strongly
suggests that Mr. Chapman’s care at ADX was “contrary to . . . basic human
rights and the community standards of care.” Id., Vol. VI, at 879. And the record
supports sufficient inferences that each Medical Professional acted with a
culpable state of mind by disregarding a substantial risk of harm to Mr. Chapman.
To be sure, we are aware of the repeated suggestions of the Medical
Professionals that some of the failings of medical care Mr. Chapman complains of
were not attributable to their bad intentions, but, rather, to shortages of medical
staff and security considerations that are particularly acute in a high-security
penal facility like ADX. See, e.g., Aplts.’ Opening Br. at 5 (noting that ADX has
“an uncommon level of security and has unique security and control procedures”);
id. at 27 (“There were numerous issues outside of Osagie and Camacho’s control,
relating to the unique security protocols at ADX, which sometimes delayed pill
line.”); id. at 28 (“Both Osagie and Camacho stated that they never intentionally
delayed pill line and tried to complete pill line as soon as possible, but they
acknowledged that there were sometimes delays because of issues that were
outside of their control.”).
Although we do not gainsay or diminish the seriousness of such
institutional considerations, we must construe the summary-judgment record in
11
the light most favorable to Mr. Chapman. See, e.g., Armijo, 159 F.3d at 1259; see
also Zia v. Tr. Co. ex rel Causey v. Montoya, 597 F.3d 1150, 1155 (10th Cir.
2010) (“Our analysis of course [of the summary-judgment record] only accounts
for the plaintiffs’ version of events, a version which a jury may later reject.
However, under this version we agree with the district court that the plaintiffs
have met their burden of showing a constitutional violation.”). And, if the record
so construed raises triable inferences that each of the Medical Professionals acted
with the requisite culpable intent under the Eighth Amendment, then the alleged
institutional constraints of ADX will not preclude a denial of their qualified-
immunity defenses. Cf. Ramos v. Lamm, 639 F.2d 559, 578 (10th Cir. 1980)
(where prison-administrator defendants sued for injunctive relief blamed the
provision of allegedly inadequate prisoner medical care on staffing shortages,
holding that those shortages did not excuse such care; instead, they “evince[d] . . .
a deliberate indifference to the serious health needs of the prison population”); cf.
also Toussaint v. McCarthy, 801 F.2d 1080, 1093 (9th Cir. 1986) (“The state has
no right to subject a prisoner to cruel and unusual punishment. The [E]ighth
[A]mendment is not a ‘maybe’ or a ‘sometimes’ proposition. If conditions violate
the [E]ighth [A]mendment, all prisoners have the right to be free of such
conditions. The right does not vary depending on the threat that the individual
prisoner presents to institutional security.”), abrogated on other grounds, Sandin
12
v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (1995). In other words, irrespective of the institutional
constraints associated with ADX, if the Medical Professionals acted with
deliberate indifference, within the meaning of our precedent, to Mr. Chapman’s
serious medical needs, they violated his Eighth Amendment rights.
We recognize that Bivens liability is personal; Mr. Chapman must establish
that each Medical Professional personally violated his Eighth Amendment rights.
See, e.g., Pahls v. Thomas, 718 F.3d 1210, 1225–26 (10th Cir. 2013) (“Because
[42 U.S.C.] § 1983 and Bivens are vehicles for imposing personal liability on
government officials, we have stressed the need for careful attention to
particulars, especially in lawsuits involving multiple defendants. . . . [I]t is
incumbent upon a plaintiff to ‘identify specific actions taken by particular
defendants’ in order to make out a viable § 1983 or Bivens claim.” (citations
omitted) (quoting Tonkovich v. Kan. Bd. of Regents, 159 F.3d 504, 532 (10th Cir.
1998)); accord Glaser v. City and Cty. of Denver, 557 F. App’x 689, 702 (10th
Cir. 2014) (unpublished)). Examining the objective and subjective components of
the deliberate-indifference standard, we conclude that Mr. Chapman has made this
individualized showing of Eighth Amendment violations.
A
The record shows that each Medical Professional caused Mr. Chapman
substantial harm, thereby satisfying the objective component. Mr. Osagie did so
13
on March 18, 2013. By the time Mr. Osagie arrived with Mr. Chapman’s insulin,
Mr. Chapman was having an episode of severe hyperglycemia. When his blood
sugar is that high, Mr. Chapman says his “blood feels like it’s on fire.” Aplee.’s
Suppl. App., Vol. VI, at 848 (Expert Report, dated Nov. 21, 2016). And as Mr.
Osagie admitted, hyperglycemia can cause a diabetic to “go into a coma. They
can die from it, ultimately.” Id. at 656 (Tr. of Osagie Dep., dated May 17, 2016).
To alleviate the pain and lower his blood sugar to a safe level, Mr. Chapman
needed sliding scale insulin. See Aplts.’ Opening Br. at 25. But Mr. Osagie did
not bring the sliding scale insulin. And he waited over two hours before returning
with it. See Aplts.’ App., Vol. XI, at 1694–95 (Pl.’s Narrative Note, dated
Mar. 18, 2013). When Mr. Osagie did return and Mr. Chapman complained, Mr.
Osagie replied, “It’s not my problem, it’s not my fault.” Aplts.’ Opening Br.
at 26. Yet, for those two hours and twenty minutes, Mr. Chapman was in
substantial pain. By prolonging that pain and exacerbating the risk of coma and
death, Mr. Osagie inflicted substantial harm on Mr. Chapman sufficient to satisfy
the objective component. Cf. Al-Turki, 762 F.3d at 1193 (holding that prolonging
severe abdominal pain satisfied objective component); Sealock, 218 F.3d at 1210
(holding that delay in treating chest pain satisfied objective component).
Mr. Camacho, too, inflicted substantial harm. On one occasion, Mr.
Chapman twice complained to guards that he was “in pain” or “in serious pain”
14
from severe hyperglycemia. Aplts.’ App., Vol. XVI, at 2322 (Pl.’s Narrative
Note, dated June 6, 2013). When Mr. Camacho arrived—about two hours and
forty-five minutes after Mr. Chapman’s initial complaint—Mr. Chapman
explained that he experiences “extreme pain” when his blood sugar is high and
that he “had been asking for help for hours.” Id. Unmoved, Mr. Camacho replied
that he was not “worried about” Mr. Chapman’s blood sugar “being high” because
he knew someone who had extremely high blood sugar (i.e., multiple times the
threshold for hyperglycemia) who “survived.” Id. Those hours of “unnecessary
pain” satisfy “the objective component.” Mata, 427 F.3d at 755; see Lolli v.
County of Orange, 351 F.3d 410, 419–20 (9th Cir. 2003) (noting that diabetes
“can produce harmful consequences if left untreated for even a relatively short
period of time” and “join[ing] our sister circuits in acknowledging that a
constitutional violation may take place when the government does not respond to
the legitimate medical needs of a detainee whom it has reason to believe is
diabetic”).
The records shows that Dr. Santini also caused Mr. Chapman substantial
harm. “Every physician knows . . . that poorly controlled diabetes risks death.”
Aplee.’s Suppl. App., Vol. XXII, at 2285. Under Dr. Santini’s care, Mr.
Chapman’s severe diabetes was “poorly controlled.” Id. As is clearly reflected in
his medical records, Mr. Chapman suffered serious bouts of hypoglycemia and
15
hyperglycemia multiple times a week, as well as several bouts of hypoglycemia
that were life-threatening. See id. at 2235–80. Dr. Shakir warned that Mr.
Chapman “[wa]s at a very high risk for diabetes ketoacidosis and hypoglycemia”
and needed up to six shots of insulin every day. Id., Vol. VII, at 1021. Dr.
Santini, however, provided a level of care that one expert called “dramatically
short of medically acceptable standards . . . , even for prisoners.” Id., Vol. VI, at
879. Such shoddy care exposed Mr. Chapman to possible “brain injury” and
“vision problems,” and contributed to painful hyperglycemia and life-threatening
hypoglycemia. Id., Vol. XXII, at 2285; id., Vol. VI, at 877; id. at 870; id., Vol.
XXII, at 2235–80.
Simply put, the record suggests that Dr. Santini caused Mr. Chapman
substantial harm. See Scinto v. Stansberry, 841 F.3d 219, 229 (4th Cir. 2016)
(“Plaintiff has created a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether Dr.
Phillip’s failure to provide him with insulin was an ‘extreme deprivation’
resulting in ‘a serious or significant physical or emotional injury’ or ‘a substantial
risk’ thereof actionable under the Eighth Amendment.”); cf. Derfiny v. Pontiac
Osteopathic Hosp., 106 F. App’x 929, 934–35 (6th Cir. 2004) (unpublished)
(remanding to district court to consider defendants’ request for qualified
immunity, but opining that physicians’ continuation of inmate’s standard insulin
regimen—without measuring his blood sugar levels—presented a genuine dispute
16
of material fact as to objective component, because it was “well known” that
inmate had Type I diabetes, and his “history of erratic blood sugar levels” was
documented).
B
Now for the subjective component. Recall that this component requires
that a defendant act with “a sufficiently culpable state of mind.” Redmond, 882
F.3d at 936 (quoting Giron, 191 F.3d at 1289). A defendant has the necessary
state of mind if he knew an inmate “faced a substantial risk of harm and
disregarded that risk.” Id. at 939 (quoting Beggs, 563 F.3d at 1088–89). An
inmate need not prove that the defendant had actual knowledge of the danger or
actually intended that harm befall the inmate. See Mata, 427 F.3d at 752. Rather,
it is enough that circumstantial evidence supports an inference that a defendant
failed to verify or confirm a “risk that he strongly suspected to exist.” Id.
(quoting Farmer, 511 U.S. at 843 n.8).
The record supports sufficient inferences that each Medical Professional
acted with a culpable state of mind by disregarding a substantial risk of harm to
Mr. Chapman. Mr. Osagie knew that diabetics “can go into a coma” and “die
from” severe hyperglycemia. Aplee.’s Suppl. App., Vol. VI, at 656. Mr.
Camacho knew that hyperglycemia carries risks of slower blood flow to “several
vital organs,” including the brain, heart, and kidneys, and can cause diminished
17
functioning in each of these organs. Id. at 629–30 (Tr. of Camacho Dep., dated
July 25, 2016). Both men knew “that hypoglycemia can be dangerous in the
short-term due to the possibility of . . . coma or potentially death.” Id., Vol. XV,
at 1825 (Camacho Decl., dated July 19, 2017); see also id., Vol. VI, at 653.
Furthermore, they knew that Mr. Chapman’s “sugars go stupid” when his insulin
is delivered outside of the normal schedule. See Aplts.’ App., Vol. X, at 1253
(Email from Osagie to Camacho and Others, sent Apr. 1, 2013). But they still
delivered Mr. Chapman’s insulin late. See id. at 1247–48 (Osagie Decl., dated
July 19, 2017); Aplee.’s Suppl. App., Vol. XV, at 1822–25. And when they found
Mr. Chapman in the throes of severe bouts of hyperglycemia, they waited hours to
bring the insulin necessary to alleviate Mr. Chapman’s pain. See Aplts.’ App.,
Vol. XI, at 1694–95; id., Vol. XVI, at 2322. Their inaction in the face of this
known danger is deliberate indifference. See Mata, 427 F.3d at 759.
Dr. Santini also acted with a culpable state of mind by disregarding a
substantial risk of harm to Mr. Chapman. Dr. Santini, like “[e]very physician,”
knew “that poorly controlled diabetes risks death.” Aplee.’s Suppl. App., Vol.
XXII, at 2285. Dr. Santini knew “Mr. Chapman’s blood [sugar levels] were all
over the board.” Id. at 2307 (Tr. of Santini Dep., dated May 9, 2016). But Dr.
Santini failed to prescribe more insulin shots or otherwise adjust Mr. Chapman’s
treatment. Id. at 2303. The reason for this inaction? Dr. Santini claimed that
18
“had any serious issues been brought to [his] attention . . . , [he] would have
taken steps to address [them].” Aplts.’ App., Vol. X, at 1272 (Santini Decl.,
dated July 19, 2017). But the record proves that Mr. Chapman had brought
serious issues to Dr. Santini’s attention. He told Dr. Santini about his “out of
control blood sugar.” Id., Vol. XVI, at 2283–84 (Chapman Decl., dated Sept. 15,
2017). He even “tried to show [Dr. Santini] [his] blood sugar logs but [Dr.
Santini] refused to look at them.” Id. at 2284. What’s more, Dr. Santini admitted
that he reviewed Mr. Chapman’s official medical records before each
appointment. Aplee.’s Suppl. App., Vol. XXII, at 2309. Those records clearly
reveal that Mr. Chapman repeatedly experienced life-threatening bouts of
hypoglycemia and serious bouts of hyperglycemia. See id. at 2235–80.
In short, Mr. Chapman told Dr. Santini about a serious problem, and the
medical records that Dr. Santini acknowledged reviewing confirmed that problem.
But still Dr. Santini did nothing. This inaction would permit a finding that the
subjective component was satisfied. See Hunt v. Uphoff, 199 F.3d 1220, 1223–24
(10th Cir. 1999) (holding that a prisoner sufficiently alleged deliberate
indifference—as opposed to a mere disagreement over proper medical
treatment—where a prison doctor refused to prescribe him insulin, and ultimately,
the inadequate treatment of his diabetes and hypertension caused him to suffer a
heart attack); see also Leavitt v. Corr. Med. Servs., Inc., 645 F.3d 484, 498–501
19
(1st Cir. 2011) (holding that medical professional’s conduct satisfied the
subjective component where he knew prisoner suffered from HIV and various
HIV symptoms, but failed to read critical report relating to inmate’s “viral load”
in order to avoid the obligation to provide the inmate appropriate—but
costly—medical care); cf. Derfiny, 106 F. App’x at 936 (“Despite [physician]
Defendants’ knowledge of the available information, by administering drugs to a
patient without assessing his need, [physician] Defendants Johnson and Purchase
acted with deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s substantial risks.”).
Furthermore, recall that Dr. Shakir had written a letter warning future
medical providers, such as Dr. Santini, that Mr. Chapman “is at a very high risk
for diabetes ketoacidosis and hypoglycemia” and that he needs up to six shots of
insulin every day. Aplee.’s Suppl. App., Vol. VII, at 1021. This warning letter
should have bolstered the credibility of Mr. Chapman’s own reports of his
serious, diabetes-related health problems and, along with all of the other red flags
outlined above, strongly suggested to Dr. Santini that Mr. Chapman was
experiencing serious ongoing harm. And, because of these many red flags, we
cannot say that Mr. Chapman’s complaints about Dr. Santini’s care amounted to
nothing more than “a mere disagreement as to his medical treatment.” Hunt, 199
F.3d at 1223.
20
In sum, viewing his conduct in the totality, we conclude that, as to Dr.
Santini, the subjective component is satisfied. Scinto, 841 F.3d at 229 (holding
that refusing to prescribe supplemental insulin while aware of prisoner’s diabetes
diagnosis, blood sugar levels, and need for insulin met subjective component); Cf.
Oxendine, 241 F.3d at 1278–79 (prison doctor’s two-week delay in obtaining
specialized treatment—after personally recording evidence that prisoner’s
reattached finger was decaying—met subjective component).
IV
Thus, each Medical Professional violated the Eighth Amendment by acting
with deliberate indifference to Mr. Chapman’s serious medical needs. But did
they violate clearly established law? Yes. Our existing precedent put the
unconstitutionality of each Medical Professional’s conduct beyond debate. See,
e.g., al-Kidd, 563 U.S. at 741 (“A Government official’s conduct violates clearly
established law when, at the time of the challenged conduct, ‘[t]he contours of [a]
right [are] sufficiently clear’ that every ‘reasonable official would have
understood that what he is doing violates that right.’ We do not require a case
directly on point, but existing precedent must have placed the statutory or
constitutional question beyond debate.” (alteration in original) (quoting Anderson,
483 U.S. at 640)).
21
As it relates to the liability of Dr. Santini, our decision in Hunt is most on-
point. There, a prison doctor had prescribed insulin for an inmate with diabetes
and hypertension. Hunt, 199 F.3d at 1223. Despite the previous prescription,
another doctor “did not believe” that the inmate needed insulin and thus did not
provide it for over a year. Id. But the inmate was not totally denied treatment; he
saw doctors, got prescriptions, and had medical procedures. Id. at 1222–23.
Even so, the inmate eventually died “of acute blockage of [his] coronary artery
bypass graft.” Id. at 1223. The district court concluded that the second doctor
did not act with deliberate indifference. Id. We reversed that order. Id. at 1224.
Although that doctor believed (wrongly) that the inmate did not need insulin, we
could “not agree with the district court that the facts as alleged . . . reflect[ed] a
‘mere disagreement with [the] medical treatment.’” Id. (emphasis added) (quoting
the appellate record).
So too here. As in Hunt, one doctor (i.e., Dr. Shakir) thought an inmate
needed a certain insulin prescription. Aplee.’s Suppl. App., Vol. VII, at 1021.
Like Hunt, another doctor (i.e., Dr. Santini) disagreed and withheld the necessary
amount of insulin, id., Vol. XXII, at 2303, though the inmate did receive other
medical treatment over that period. As in Hunt, the inmate suffered adverse
health consequences due to a lack of sufficient insulin. See id. at 2235–80.
Simply put, given Mr. Chapman’s wild swings in blood sugar—of which Dr.
22
Santini was aware—a reasonable official in Dr. Santini’s position would have
known that denying Mr. Chapman adequate insulin violated the Eighth
Amendment. Hunt clearly established as much. See Lolli, 351 F.3d at 420 (citing
Hunt for proposition that an official who fails to “respond to the legitimate
medical needs of a [prisoner] whom it has reason to believe is diabetic” violates
the Eighth Amendment).
As for Messrs. Osagie and Camacho, let’s consider Al-Turki. In that case,
an inmate with Type 2 diabetes “began to feel severe pain in his left side.” Al-
Turki, 762 F.3d at 1191. The inmate sent multiple correctional officers to tell a
prison nurse about his pain. Id. But the nurse refused to see him “because it was
too late and because [his] complaint was not an emergency.” Id. As a result, the
inmate endured “several hours of untreated severe pain.” Id. at 1194. We held
that the nurse violated clearly established law by prolonging the inmate’s pain and
leaving him without care for hours during a potential “medical emergency.” Id. at
1195 (quoting Self v. Crum, 439 F.3d 1227, 1232 (10th Cir. 2006)).
Mr. Osagie and Mr. Camacho did something similar. They encountered
Mr. Chapman during bouts of severe hyperglycemia, a medical emergency which,
if left untreated, can result in a coma or death. See, e.g., Aplee.’s Suppl. App.,
Vol. VI, at 656. But rather than treat that emergency promptly, they delayed for
hours. See Aplts.’ App., Vol. XI, at 1694–95; id., Vol. XVI, at 2322. As in Al-
23
Turki, their conduct violated clearly established law. See Al-Turki, 762 F.3d at
1194–95 (holding that “[i]t has been clearly established in this circuit since at
least 2006 that a deliberate indifference claim will arise when ‘a medical
professional completely denies care although presented with recognizable
symptoms which potentially create a medical emergency,’” and that defendant’s
actions constituted such behavior (quoting Self, 439 F.3d at 1232)).
Sealock also put the constitutional question facing Mr. Osagie and Mr.
Camacho beyond debate. There, the inmate awoke with “a crushing pain in his
chest.” 218 F.3d at 1208. The inmate told Sergeant Barrett about his pain and
fear that he was “having a heart attack.” Id. Sergeant Barrett “refused to
transport [the inmate] immediately to a doctor or a hospital because it was
snowing outside and it would take time to warm up the prison van for
transportation.” Id. at 1210. He then told the inmate “not to die on his shift.” Id.
“Barrett’s failure to get [the inmate] treatment” caused him “several hours” of
“pain and suffering.” Id. Thinking the inmate could not “show that the delay in
receiving medical treatment caused him any injury,” the district court granted
Sergeant Barrett’s motion for summary judgment. Id. at 1209–10. We reversed.
Id. at 1211. Although Sergeant Barrett did not cause the pain, there was evidence
to show that “the delay occasioned by his inaction unnecessarily prolonged [the
inmate’s] pain and suffering.” Id. at 1210 n.5. And we held that Sergeant
24
Barrett’s delay in the face of “symptoms consistent with a heart attack” violated
the Eighth Amendment. Id. at 1210–11.
The same principle applies here. Mr. Osagie and Mr. Camacho each found
Mr. Chapman in the midst of a medical emergency that could result in a coma or
death, Aplee.’s Suppl. App., Vol. VI, at 656, but delayed treating him for hours,
see Aplts.’ App., Vol. XI, at 1694–95; id., Vol. XVI, at 2322. Mr. Osagie
dismissed Mr. Chapman’s predicament, saying, “It’s not my problem.” Aplts.’
Opening Br. at 26. Mr. Camacho responded that he was “not worried about” Mr.
Chapman’s blood sugar “being high” because he knew someone who had
extremely high blood sugar (i.e., multiple times the threshold for hyperglycemia)
who “survived.” Aplts.’ App., Vol. XVI, at 2322. Under our clearly established
law, this conduct is unconstitutional.
In sum, each Medical Professional violated clearly established law. Our
precedent put the constitutional question facing each Medical Professional beyond
debate. And looking outside our circuit confirms that conclusion. See, e.g.,
Garretson v. City of Madison Heights, 407 F.3d 789, 798–99 (6th Cir. 2005)
(holding that officer who knew of detainee’s diabetes and delayed insulin violated
clearly established law); Lolli, 351 F.3d at 420–22 (holding that officers who
withheld insulin from diabetic violated clearly established law); Roberson v.
Bradshaw, 198 F.3d 645, 648 (8th Cir. 1999) (holding that prison official and
25
doctor violated Eighth Amendment by delaying diabetic’s doctor visit and keeping
inmate on medication despite complaints about adverse reactions, respectively).
* * *
It goes without saying that “[t]he Constitution ‘does not mandate
comfortable prisons.’” Farmer, 511 U.S. at 832 (quoting Rhodes v. Chapman,
452 U.S. 337, 349 (1981)). But nor “does it permit inhumane ones.” Id. It is our
job to judge when the facts in the record indicate that the line separating
uncomfortable from inhumane has been crossed. At a later stage in this
proceeding, a factfinder may well conclude that the line was not crossed. But, at
the summary-judgment stage, we conclude that under our precedent each of the
Medical Professionals violated Mr. Chapman’s Eighth Amendment rights under
clearly established law. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the district court’s judgment.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Jerome A. Holmes
Circuit Judge
26