Diaz v. Martin

SCOTTY SANTOS DIAZ, Plaintiff, v. SGT. INEZ MARTIN, WARDEN JOSE COLON, DR. FRANCK PAPILLON, Defendants.

Case No. 20-cv-23889-BLOOM

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

June 7, 2021

ORDER ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED COMPLAINT

THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Defendants, Sergeant Inez Martin's and Warden Jose Colon's, Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. [29] ("Motion"). The Court carefully reviewed the Motion, all opposing and supporting submissions, the record in this case, the applicable law, and is otherwise fully advised. For the reasons stated below, the Motion is denied in part and granted in part.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff is an inmate at the Dade Correctional Institution ("Dade CI") and initiated this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on September 22, 2020. ECF No. [1] (Complaint). After screening the Complaint under the Prison Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA"), the Court determined that the excessive force claim against Defendant Martin to proceed and all other claims were dismissed without prejudice. See ECF No. [9] at 17. Plaintiff filed a First Verified Amended Complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ("Amended Complaint"). ECF No. [16] at 5-31.¹ After subsequent screening, a claim of deliberate indifference to a serious medical need against Defendant Colon was determined to be sufficiently pleaded along with the excessive force claim against Defendant Martin,² see ECF No. [18] at 12-13.

Plaintiff makes the following allegations in his Amended Complaint. Plaintiff is visually impaired and suffers from severe stage Open Angle Glaucoma. He previously underwent surgery to repair his vision and lost total sight in one eye. Id. at 9-10. On May 1, 2020, while housed at Dade CI, Plaintiff was on his way to morning meal when Defendant Martin approached him and asked why he was not wearing the blue homemade face mask issued to all inmates. Id. Plaintiff politely advised Defendant Martin that someone took his blue face mask; however, the face mask he was wearing was "an actual approved medical appliance issued by the medical department." Id. Despite being told four days earlier that inmates cannot be denied meals, id. at 11, Defendant Martin told Plaintiff that he was not going to eat without his blue mask, id. at 8. After Plaintiff again reminded Defendant Martin that he no longer had a blue mask, she responded "I don't care what happen[ed] to it," "you're not going to eat without it," "now get out of my line or I'm going to spray you." Id. at 9. Plaintiff requested to speak with a captain or a lieutenant and advised Defendant Martin that he was hungry and did not have any food to eat. Id. Defendant Martin became angry and again threatened to spray Plaintiff if he did not move from the line. Id.

In fear of being sprayed, Plaintiff stepped out of line, lay down on the sidewalk on his back in a horizontal position, and placed his blind cane across his stomach and both of his arms on the ground. Id. Defendant Martin became even angrier, shouting "I'm going to spray you" and "I don't care who you want to speak to." Id. Plaintiff pleaded with Defendant Martin not to spray his eyes, telling her that he had already lost total sight in one of his eyes from Glaucoma. Id. Defendant Martin then took her can of chemical agent out, placed the nozzle directly under Plaintiff's protective eyewear, and violently sprayed into Plaintiff's surgically repaired eyes for a long period of time. Id. at 9-10. As a result of the spraying, Plaintiff experienced severe pain and was unable to breathe or see any light for several hours. Id. at 10. Plaintiff previously filed complaints and grievances against Defendant Martin for her assaults on disabled inmates but nothing was done to stop the abuse on disabled adult inmates. Id. at 10-11.

As a result of the spraying incident, Plaintiff was placed in administrative confinement and erroneously charged with disobeying a verbal order. Id. at 12. Plaintiff was dragged to an empty shower stall for decontamination. Id. Plaintiff advised the prison nurse that he had extreme pain in his eyes and was having difficulty breathing. Id. Plaintiff requested to see a doctor for his Glaucoma but was denied any further medical treatment by a physician. Id. In her report on the use of chemical spray incident, Defendant Martin lied, writing that Plaintiff became angry and waved his blind cane towards her in an aggressive manner. Id. at 12-13. Eyewitness statements confirmed Plaintiff's version of the events, affirming that he never became angry and never waved his cane at Defendant Martin. Id. at 13. On May 5, 2020, Plaintiff was found guilty of disobeying an order at the Disciplinary Report ("DR") hearing. Id. at 14.

Plaintiff was placed in administrative confinement for eighteen (18) days and his requests for sick-calls to treat the exacerbation of his pre-existing Glaucoma were ignored. Id. at 14-15. On May 18, 2020, Plaintiff was released from confinement. Id. at 15. Plaintiff continued to file sick-calls, grievances, and a "formal complaint"³ regarding the excessive force incident and requesting to see a specialist for his pre-existing and deteriorating Glaucoma. Id. at 12. On June 4, 2020, Nurse Mercedes evaluated Plaintiff and determined that Dr. Altamirano needed to examine him. Id. at 18. Dr. Altamirano determined that both of Plaintiff's eyes were infected and prescribed him antibiotic eye drops and Plaintiff signed a blue consult for an appointment with optometry. Id. On June 24, 2020, a week after submitting a sick-call for his still-infected eyes, Nurse Mercedes advised Plaintiff he would be seen by a doctor. Id. On July 16, 2020, thirteen (13) days after submitting a sick-call for his eyes and twenty-two (22) days after being told he would be seen by a doctor, Dr. Altamirano examined Plaintiff's eyes, prescribed Excedrin and "more antibiotics," advised Plaintiff "he would speak to the (C.H.O.) for consult with the optometrist," and signed a blue consult request form. Id. at 19.

On or about July 18, 2020, Plaintiff approached Defendant Colon inside of the C-2 dormitory and showed Defendant Colon his infected eyes and personally asked him to do two things: investigate Defendant Martin's May 1, 2020 chemical spray "assault" and advise medical that Plaintiff was in need of treatment. Id. at 16-17. Defendant Colon responded that he was not advised of the "assault" and that he neither received nor read Plaintiff's "formal complaint," but he stated he would email medical. Id. at 17. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Colon "lied about [not] receiving Plaintiff's formal complaint" and "he never e-mailed the medical department neither." Id. (alteration added). Plaintiff alleges that due to the "formal complaint" along with his previous, ongoing lawsuit regarding deliberate indifference to his severe stage Open Angle Glaucoma,⁴ Defendant Colon had knowledge of Plaintiff's serious medical condition prior to personally observing Plaintiff's infected eyes. Id. at 16, 18.

On August 5, 2020, more than ninety (90) days after the chemical spray use of force and after filing "flurries of grievances, seven sick-call request[s], . . . oral request[s] to both security and medical staff, [and] . . . a formal complaint to the Florida Department of Corrections Inspector General," Plaintiff was transported to Bascom Palmer Eye Institute for an appointment with an eye specialist. Id. at 20 (alterations added). On August 20, 2020, plaintiff underwent surgery on his right eye to alleviate the pain and lower the pressure. Id. During the three-month period between the chemical spray use of force and the surgery, Plaintiff suffered from extreme pain and discomfort. Id. at 24. The unnecessary delay in receiving adequate treatment caused further damage to Plaintiff's vision. Id.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

A. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require a pleading to contain "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Although a complaint "does not need detailed factual allegations," it must provide "more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007); see Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (explaining that Rule 8(a)(2)'s pleading standard "demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation"). In the same vein, a complaint may not rest on "'naked assertion[s]' devoid of 'further factual enhancement.'" Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (alteration in original) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557). "Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. These elements are required to survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, which requests dismissal for "failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).

When reviewing a motion under Rule 12(b)(6), a court generally must accept the plaintiff's allegations as true and evaluate all plausible inferences derived from those facts in plaintiff's favor. See Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Fla. v. S. Everglades Restoration All., 304 F.3d 1076, 1084 (11th Cir. 2002). "'Pro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than pleadings drafted by attorneys' and are liberally construed." Bingham v. Thomas, 654 F.3d 1171, 1175 (11th Cir. 2011) (quoting Tannenbaum v. United States, 148 F.3d 1262, 1263 (11th Cir. 1998)). "Yet even in the case of pro se litigants this leniency does not give a court license to serve as de facto counsel for a party, or to rewrite an otherwise deficient pleading in order to sustain an action." Campbell v. Air Jamaica Ltd., 760 F.3d 1165, 1168-69 (11th Cir. 2014) (quoting GJR Invs., Inc. v. Ctny. of Escambia, Fla., 132 F.3d 1359, 1369 (11th Cir. 1998)).

Nonetheless, courts "are not bound to accept...