Duran v. Donaldson

FILED
United States Court of Appeals
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT October 18, 2016
_________________________________
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
LEO L. DURAN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v. No. 15-2160
(D.C. No. 1:09-CV-00758-MCA-SMV)
LESLIE DONALDSON, Doctor of (D. N.M.)
C.C.A.D.C.; BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF CURRY
COUNTY; TAMARA CURTIS,
Defendants - Appellees.
_________________________________
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
_________________________________
Before BRISCOE, LUCERO, and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________
Leo L. Duran, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s
dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights complaint. Mr. Duran asserted
Dr. Leslie Donaldson and Nurse Tamara Curtis (collectively, the Defendants)
violated his Eighth Amendment rights by acting with deliberate indifference to his
medical and mental-health needs while he was incarcerated at the Curry County
*
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of
this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore
ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding
precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral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.
Adult Detention Center (CCADC).1 The district court granted summary judgment in
favor of Dr. Donaldson, and dismissed the claims against Nurse Curtis under
Fed. R. Civ. P 12(b)(6) on qualified immunity grounds. Exercising jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm.
BACKGROUND
Mr. Duran alleged Dr. Donaldson and Nurse Curtis denied or delayed care for
a hand wound and provided inadequate mental health services to him while he was
incarcerated at CCADC from October 2007 to May 2008. Dr. Donaldson is a private
physician who contracts to provide treatment to CCADC inmates; Nurse Curtis is a
registered nurse employed at CCADC. The magistrate judge’s reports and
recommendations and the district court’s orders very thoroughly and accurately set
forth the allegations and evidence, which we need not repeat in detail.
Hand Wound. Mr. Duran punched another inmate on December 10, 2007, and
in doing so, cut his hand on the inmate’s teeth. CCADC sent Mr. Duran to a hospital
where his wound was examined, cleaned and closed, and he was given an antibiotic
prescription. Several days later, Dr. Donaldson saw Mr. Duran in his cell because the
wound reopened and an infection developed. Dr. Donaldson said he would examine
1
Mr. Duran also alleged claims against the Board of County Commissioners
of Curry County, New Mexico (the Board), which were dismissed by the district
court. Mr. Duran has forfeited appellate review of this dismissal by his failure to file
any objections to the magistrate judge’s two reports and recommendations to grant
the Board’s motions to dismiss. See Wirsching v. Colorado, 360 F.3d 1191, 1197
(10th Cir. 2004) (adopting a firm waiver rule that failure to object to a magistrate
judge’s findings or recommendations waives appellate review of both factual and
legal questions).
2
Mr. Duran on his next clinic day, December 20th. In the meantime, Nurse Curtis
cleaned and reclosed Mr. Duran’s wound. Mr. Duran was unable to see
Dr. Donaldson on December 20 because he was in court. Nurse Curtis treated
Mr. Duran’s wound several more times, and CCADC sent Mr. Duran to a medical
clinic, where he was given another antibiotic prescription and referred to an
orthopedic surgeon who examined Mr. Duran on January 4, 2008. CCADC later took
Mr. Duran to an infectious disease specialist on January 17, who prescribed more
antibiotics and recommended a bone culture, which was never scheduled.
CCADC took Mr. Duran to a hand surgeon on January 21, who noted the
antibiotics appeared to have taken care of the infection and that Mr. Duran’s hand
was well healed. The hand surgeon asked that Mr. Duran be returned in four to six
weeks for evaluation and ordered physical therapy to teach him range-of-motion
exercises. Physical therapy was never provided to Mr. Duran and he was not taken
again to the hand surgeon. Dr. Donaldson examined Mr. Duran on April 2, 2008, and
concluded the wound was well-healed and that further treatment was unnecessary.
Mr. Duran transferred out of CCADC on May 5, 2008.
Mr. Duran alleged Defendants denied or delayed him medical care for his hand
injury, as a result of which he suffered decreased grip strength in his finger and pain
due to the lingering infection. He listed many reasons he believed Defendants were
deliberately indifferent, including that they failed to return him to the hospital when
his wound became infected, and failed to follow the hand surgeon’s treatment plan to
obtain a bone culture, provide him with physical therapy, and return him for follow
3
up care. He alleged Dr. Donaldson failed to examine him prior to December 20,
2007, to prescribe adequate antibiotics, and to supervise Nurse Curtis’s care. He
alleged Nurse Curtis was deliberately indifferent by treating his wound without
physician supervision and failing to house him in CCADC’s medical pod.
Mental Health Care. Mr. Duran has a history of psychiatric disorders,
including severe anxiety and impulse control, which were noted when he arrived at
CCADC. Dr. Donaldson prescribed various psychotropic medications to Mr. Duran
throughout his incarceration. Mr. Duran filed numerous grievances during his
incarceration at CCADC claiming he was getting the wrong medication, wanted to try
different medication, or was not getting his medication. Mr. Duran was seen by a
psychiatrist in March 2008.
He alleged Dr. Donaldson and Nurse Curtis were deliberately indifferent to his
mental health needs, and as a result, he became aggressive after taking a psychotropic
medication wrongly prescribed, causing him to strike the inmate in December 2007.
Mr. Duran alleged Dr. Donaldson failed to personally evaluate his complaints of
mood changes, to adequately monitor his psychotropic medications, and to
implement adequate procedures for emergency psychiatric care. He alleged Nurse
Curtis ignored his request to obtain his correct psychotropic medications from his
family, prevented him by getting treatment with an outside mental health provider by
rescheduling his appointment, and failed to fulfill her gatekeeper role to ensure he
received adequate psychiatric treatment before he assaulted the inmate.
4
District Court Proceedings. The district court granted Dr. Donaldson’s motion
for summary judgment and Nurse Curtis’s motion to dismiss.2 As to the hand wound,
the court ruled Mr. Duran failed to present objective evidence that he suffered
sufficiently serious harm to qualify as an Eighth Amendment violation, or that any
denial or delay in treatment by Defendants caused his alleged harms. As to
Mr. Duran’s mental health care, the district court ruled that Mr. Duran failed to show
either Defendant was aware of a substantial risk to Mr. Duran’s health, noting that
Mr. Duran was receiving psychotropic medication before he struck the inmate, and
that his mental illness had never caused him to strike anyone prior to that incident.
DISCUSSION
On appeal, Mr. Duran argues the district court erred in ruling he failed to show
Dr. Donaldson and Nurse Curtis acted with deliberate indifference. He asks the court
to appoint an expert to support his claims and to appoint counsel. We review de novo
the grant of Dr. Donaldson’s motion summary judgment, viewing the record in the
light most favorable to Mr. Duran. Mata v. Saiz, 427 F.3d 745, 749 (10th Cir. 2005).
We also review de novo the grant of Nurse Curtis’s motion to dismiss based on
qualified immunity. Weise v. Casper, 593 F.3d 1163, 1166 (10th Cir. 2010). We
liberally construe Mr. Duran’s appellate filings in light of his pro se status, but we
2
A magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation (R&R) to grant
summary judgment on all claims against Dr. Donaldson and to dismiss all but two of
the claims against Nurse Curtis. The district court adopted the R&R as to
Dr. Donaldson in full, and ruled Nurse Curtis was entitled to qualified immunity on
all claims, sustaining her objections to the R&R.
5
may not act as his advocate or make arguments for him. Walters v. Wal–Mart Stores,
703 F.3d 1167, 1173 (10th Cir. 2013).
Legal Standards. Prison officials violate the Eighth Amendment’s ban on
cruel and unusual punishment if their “deliberate indifference to serious medical
needs of prisoners constitutes the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain.” Estelle
v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976) (internal quotation marks omitted). The test for
deliberate indifference includes both an objective and subjective component.
Martinez v. Beggs, 563 F.3d 1082, 1088 (10th Cir. 2009).
To satisfy the objective element, the alleged deprivation must be “sufficiently
serious”; that is, it must expose the inmate to a “substantial risk of serious harm.”
Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994) (internal quotation marks omitted). To
satisfy the subjective element, the prison official “must have a sufficiently culpable
state of mind,” id. (internal quotation marks omitted), that is, he “must both be aware
of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious
harm exists, and he must also draw the inference.” Id. at 837. As relevant to Nurse
Curtis’s motion to dismiss on qualified immunity grounds, when a defendant asserts
qualified immunity as a defense to a § 1983 claim, “the burden shifts to the plaintiff
to show that: (1) the defendant violated a constitutional right and (2) the
constitutional right was clearly established.” Martinez, 563 F.3d at 1088.
Hand Injury. The district court ruled Mr. Duran did not satisfy the objective
component of his deliberate-indifference claim because the deprivation alleged was
not “sufficiently serious.” It ruled the alleged pain due to the infection and decreased
6
grip strength and pain when grasping did not rise to a level sufficiently serious to be
cognizable under the Eighth Amendment. Further, it ruled that Mr. Duran failed to
present any evidence, expert or non-expert, that Defendants’ actions or inaction in
any way caused or was to blame for these alleged harms. See Mata, 427 F.3d at 751(holding § 1983 plaintiff must show alleged delay in medical care “resulted in
substantial harm”).
On appeal, Mr. Duran lists numerous reasons why he believes Defendants
were deliberately indifferent to his hand wound.3 We agree with the district court,
however, that he did not produce objective evidence that any alleged deprivation was
an objectively, sufficiently serious injury cognizable under the Eighth Amendment.
A sufficiently serious injury is one that denies the inmate “the minimal
civilized measure of life’s necessities.” Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 347
(1981). Only extreme deprivations will support an Eighth Amendment claim.
Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 9 (1992). “[A] medical need is sufficiently serious
if it 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.” Mata, 427 F.3d at 751. “The substantial harm requirement may
3
He argues on appeal that Dr. Donaldson was deliberately indifferent to his
hand wound by (1) refusing to treat his reopened wound until December 20, 2007,
(2) failing to follow the hand surgeon’s treatment plan; and (3) concluding in April
2008 that Mr. Duran’s hand was healed and did not require further treatment. He
argues Nurse Curtis was deliberately indifferent to his hand wound by (1) repeatedly
applying Dermabond to his infected wound, (2) failing to return him to hospital when
his wound condition changed, and (3) failing to follow the hand surgeon’s treatment
plan for a bone culture and physical therapy.
7
be satisfied by lifelong handicap, permanent loss, or considerable pain.” Id.(citations and internal quotation marks omitted).
In determining whether a medical need or harm is sufficiently serious under
the objective component, we consider both the symptoms initially presented to the
prison employee as well as any resulting harm. Mata, 427 F.3d at 753. Although
infections may be a serious medical need, there is no evidence in the record here that
the condition of any infection in Mr. Duran’s hand ever obviously required prompt
medical attention that Dr. Donaldson or Nurse Curtis ignored. Mr. Duran was treated
regularly by Nurse Curtis and he was repeatedly taken to specialists outside CCADC
for further examination and antibiotic prescriptions. After Mr. Duran was seen by
the hand specialist, who concluded the wound was well-healed, there is no evidence
that his wound was thereafter ever infected or otherwise required any further
treatment by Dr. Donaldson or another physician.
Further, we agree with the district court that the resulting decreased grip
strength and discomfort in his finger do not rise to the level of an objectively,
sufficiently serious injury.4 “[I]t is the harm claimed by the prisoner that must be
sufficiently serious to satisfy the objective component, and not solely the symptoms
4
Mr. Duran asserts on appeal that he lost a quarter inch of his finger due to
the infection in his hand knuckle, and thus suffered serious harm. He did not make
this claim in his complaint, but first raised this allegation in his objections to the
magistrate judge’s reports and recommendation and never presented any supporting
evidence. Accordingly this argument has been waived. See United States v.
Garfinkle, 261 F.3d 1030, 1031 (10th Cir. 2001) (“In this circuit, theories raised for
the first time in objections to the magistrate judge’s report are deemed waived.”).
8
presented at the time the prison employee has contact with the prisoner.” Martinez,
563 F.3d at 1088 (internal quotation marks omitted). And, as the district court found,
Mr. Duran failed to present evidence of any causal link between any alleged delay in
care by Defendants and his alleged stiffness and discomfort. A “[d]elay in medical
care only constitutes an Eighth Amendment violation where the plaintiff can show
the delay resulted in substantial harm.” Sealock v. Colorado, 218 F.3d 1205, 1210
(10th Cir. 2000). We conclude Mr. Duran did not present sufficient evidence related
to the treatment of his hand wound to satisfy the objective component of the
deliberate indifference test.
Mental Health Care. The district court ruled Mr. Duran did not satisfy either
the objective or subjective components of his claims that the Defendants were
deliberately indifferent to his mental health needs. The court ruled Mr. Duran’s
claim of substantial harm, namely that he struck an inmate because of his
inadequately treated mental illness, is not sufficiently serious to satisfy the objective
component. The court further ruled that there was no evidence that either Defendant
was aware of and disregarded an excessive risk to Mr. Duran’s health or safety with
respect to his mental illnesses, and there was no evidence that any alleged failure by
Defendants caused Mr. Duran to punch the inmate.
On appeal, Mr. Duran argues that Nurse Curtis ignored his complaints about
his medication and need for outside psychiatric care for his anxiety and aggression
and that Dr. Donaldson prescribed psychotropic medication without personally
9
examining him.5 He also argues it was error to rule punching an inmate due to
inadequate mental health care is not a sufficiently serious injury to state an Eighth
Amendment claim.
To be deliberately indifferent, a defendant “must both be aware of facts from
which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists, and
he must also draw the inference.” Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837. Here, there is no
evidence in the record that Dr. Donaldson or Nurse Curtis were aware of any risk that
Mr. Duran might harm himself or another inmate because of any mental health issues
he had. The undisputed evidence demonstrates that Dr. Donaldson prescribed
psychiatric medications for Mr. Duran throughout his incarceration at CCADC.
Thus, there is no evidence indicating a risk of substantial harm. Further, Mr. Duran’s
opinion that he should have been prescribed different medications are insufficient to
show deliberate indifference under the Eighth Amendment. See, e.g., Estelle,
429 U.S. at 105–06 (neither “inadvertent failure to provide adequate medical care”
nor “a complaint that a physician has been negligent in diagnosing or treating a
medical condition . . . state a valid claim of medical mistreatment under the Eighth
5
More specifically, he argues Dr. Donaldson was deliberately indifferent to
his mental health needs by (1) providing mental health treatment through medical
forms rather than examination; (2) hiring untrained and non-qualified medical
personnel to assess his need for mental health care; (3) failing to ensure that he had
access to mental health providers outside of CCADC; (4) failing to implement
procedures for timely psychiatric care; (5) only providing mental health treatments
occasionally; (6) lacking qualifications to diagnose his mental health needs; and
(7) providing erroneous treatment for his severe anxiety and aggression.
10
Amendment.”). Finally, there is no evidence Dr. Donaldson prescribed inappropriate
medication or that the prescribed medication was in any way the cause of
Mr. Duran’s attack on the fellow inmate. The district court correctly ruled Mr. Duran
failed to allege facts that support an Eighth Amendment claim related to his mental
health care by Defendants.
We affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Dr. Donaldson
and the district court’s dismissal of Mr. Duran’s complaint against Nurse Curtis. We
deny Mr. Duran’s request for the appointment of a medical expert or counsel. We
grant Mr. Duran’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, but remind him that this
status eliminates only the need for prepayment of the filing fee. Mr. Duran remains
obligated to pay the filing fee in monthly installments. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b).
Entered for the Court
Gregory A. Phillips
Circuit Judge
11