Dobson v. Kiser

MICHAEL DOBSON, Plaintiff, v. JEFFERY KISER, et al., Defendants.

Civil Action No. 7:19cv00755

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA ROANOKE DIVISION

March 31, 2021

MEMORANDUM OPINION

By: Hon. Thomas T. Cullen United States District Judge

Plaintiff Michael Dobson, a Virginia inmate proceeding pro se, filed this civil action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against nine employees of the Virginia Department of Corrections ("VDOC") alleging violation of his constitutional rights arising from what he contends was deficient medical care.¹ This matter is before the court on Dobson's motion to appoint counsel,² Dobson's motions for injunctive relief,³ and defendants Kiser, Herrick,⁴ Anderson,Ball, Bledsoe, Hunter, Witt, and York's motions to dismiss⁵ After reviewing the record, the court concludes that Dobson fails to state a claim against these defendants and, therefore, will grant their motions to dismiss.

I.

Dobson alleges that he experienced "chest pains" in 2017 while at Buckingham Correctional Center ("Buckingham"). On May 22, 2017, Dobson was seen at the Buckingham medical unit and told that his pain was "just heartburn." Dobson asserts he "did in fact have acid reflux and was treated for that," but his pain did not go away. Dobson asserts that after a year of being told "give the meds time to work," he wanted an MRI performed and to see a specialist. Dobson claims that he "repeatedly" asked "medical staff" at Buckingham for an MRI.

At some point, Dobson was transferred to Red Onion State Prison ("Red Onion") and on March 12, 2019, he was seen by "medical staff" at Red Onion. Dobson asserts he told defendant Nurse Ball that he needed a "test on [his] heart and nothing was done." Dobson was told that a "test would be ordered," but that by March 29, 2019, it had not been scheduled. On April 1, 2019, Dobson was notified in writing that he was scheduled for a "sick call" and there was a "statement" from defendant Nurse Anderson that "all [his] issues were already discussed with [a nurse practitioner.]" Fifteen days later Dobson had not been seen by medical staff. Dobson asserts that he filed grievances and was told his grievances were unfounded. Dobson proffers that he was having "bad chest pains and numbness on [his] left side" whilehe was waiting to be seen. Dobson "was seen" on May 15, 2019, and on June 11, 2019, he was "placed on the chart for review[.]" Dobson asserts that defendant Dr. Fox told him he "was only having heartburn." Dobson "pushed to be seen by an outside doctor." He asserts that "medical staff told [him] that Richmond had ordered them not to send inmates out to the hospital unless there was overwhelming need for it [and that they should] just order pain meds [] in order to manage their pain, [but] not to try and fix the problem."

Dobson asserts that defendant Warden Kiser is "legally responsible" for the operation of Red Onion, and that he "sided with medical staff and did not order them to see to my care." Dobson proffers that defendant Nurse Bledsoe "signed off on the actions of the staff under her" and that she did not "[e]nsure that [Dobson] received the healthcare [he] needed." Dobson alleges that defendant Nurse Anderson "should have told someone over her that [he] needed to be seen" or to otherwise expedite his treatment. Dobson proffers that defendant Nurse Witt responded to his informal complaint and "stated that [he] hadn't complained of any chest or back pains." He argues that Nurse Witt "should have had [him] seen" by medical staff. Dobson told defendant Nurse Ball about his "chest and back"' pain and she did not order "any test of x[-]rays" during his intake exam at Red Onion. Dobson adds that defendant Dr. York did not "act in [accordance with his] well[-]being and should have ordered [a] test or put [him] in to see an outside doctor." Dobson claims that defendant Dr. Cortez treated him at Buckingham Correctional Center and that he "only ordered a chest x[-]ray" and failed to "properly diagnosis" Dobson's condition. Dobson alleges that Dr. Cortez "stated that Richmond would not approve any more test[s] if the x[-]ray didn't show anything," and thatDr. York and Dr. Fox echoed similar sentiments. Dobson asserts that defendant Health Services Director Herrick upheld the Red Onion grievance responses.

Dobson alleges that he has been diagnosed with a heart blockage and may need a stint placed in his heart and that the condition "could kill [him]." Dobson claims "[t]he defendant(s) failed to give [him] immediate attention" and that his symptoms of "chest pains, nauseous stomach, numbness, headaches, shortness of breath" are "due to OCPO."

Dobson raises claims of deliberate indifference, "failure to properly diagnosis [his] condition," "emotional distress," "mental anguish," gross negligence, and "negligent supervision." As a remedy, Dobson seeks compensatory damages in the amount of $1,500,000 and, if a stint is required, $3,000,000 severally between the defendants. Dobson seeks punitive damages of $1,500,000. Dobson further seeks his costs of suit and any other relief the court deems proper.

Dobson filed suit in this court on November 7, 2019. He filed a motion for a preliminary injunction on January 12, 2020 (ECF No. 17), a motion for a temporary restraining order on February 4, 2020 (ECF No. 21), and a motion for a preliminary injunction on April 20, 2020 (ECF No. 38). He has also filed a motion to appoint counsel. (ECF No. 51.) The defendants filed a motion to dismiss on February 13, 2020 and have responded to his motions seeking injunctive relief. (ECF Nos. 22, 25, 26, 27, 42, 43, and 44.) The court has reviewed the pleadings, arguments of the parties, and applicable law, making this matter ripe for decision.

II.

Dobson filed a motion for preliminary injunctive relief on January 24, 2020, requesting the court order an MRI preformed on his chest and lower back. (See ECF No. 17) ("MotionOne"). Dobson filed a motion for a temporary restraining order on February 4, 2020. (See ECF. No. 21) ("Motion Two"). Dobson filed a third motion for preliminary injunctive relief on April 20, 2020. (See ECF No. 38) ("Motion Three").

A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary and drastic remedy. Munaf v. Geren, 553 U.S. 674, 689-90 (2008). The general standard for imposing preliminary injunctive relief "requires parties seeking preliminary injunctions to demonstrate that (1) they are likely to succeed on the merits, (2) they are likely to suffer irreparable harm, (3) the balance of hardships tips in their favor, and (4) the injunction is in the public interest." Pashby v. Delia, 709 F.3d 307, 320 (4th Cir. 2013); see also Winter v. Nat. Resources Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008). The court must be mindful that "in the prison context, a request for injunctive relief must always be viewed with great caution because judicial restraint is especially called for in dealing with the complex and intractable problems of prison administration." Barnett v. Young, No. 5:18-cv-279, 2018 WL 3405415, at *2 (S.D. W. Va. June 21, 2018). A plaintiff must demonstrate "extraordinary circumstances," that would permit the court to "substitute [its] own judgment for that of the trained penological authorities charged with the administration of [state] facilities," Taylor v. Freeman, 34 F.3d 266, 268 (4th Cir.1994). The irreparable harm a plaintiff faces in the absence of relief cannot be "remote nor speculative" and instead must be "actual and imminent." Direx Israel, Ltd. v. Breakthrough Medical Group, 952 F.2d 802, 812 (4th Cir.1991); see also Cook v. Matthews, No. 7:05-CV-00493, 2006 WL 1699956, at *2 (W.D. Va. June 15, 2006) (declining to grant preliminary injunctive relief where the treatment offered is not "so deficient as to put [the plaintiff] at imminent risk of serious harm").

In Motion One for a preliminary injunction, Dobson asserts defendant Dr. Fox wishes to place him on a heart monitor for seven days. Dobson claims he "told [Dr. Fox] that [he] only ha[s] chest pains when [he is] up and moving around" and the test, therefore, will "not work." Dobson states that he does not "believe [these symptoms are caused by] by [his] heart. [Instead, he] believe[s] it[']s [his] lungs." Dobson asserts that his "back is getting wors[e]" and that his "left foot is now numb constantly, and it's hard for [him] to urinate." Dobson claims he is experiencing a "tingling[,] pricking sensation radiating from [his] right shoulder blade down [his] right arm to [his] elbow."

In Motion Two for preliminary injunctive relief, Dobson asserts only that he has been waiting to be "seen" and that he has "been left to worry[.]" Dobson does not specify the relief he seeks in the motion.

In Motion Three for preliminary injunctive relief, Dobson alleges that he had a "tel[e]-med consultation" in February where he and the medical provider discussed "tests needed" and that "it was ordered that [his] blood pressure be monitored[.]" Dobson's blood pressure was monitored for two weeks and it "was high every time with the exception of one time." Dobson asserts that "no consultation" followed this and there was "no more monitoring." Dobson claims he "must be considered as high risk for stroke, heart attack, organ damage, morbidity or death, due to high blood pressure without medication." Dobson seeks a "medical injunction" so that he can receive "life[-]saving meds needed."

The irreparable harm that Dobson alleges is too "remote" and "speculative" for the court to grant injunctive relief. Direx Israel, Ltd. v. Breakthrough Medical Group, 952 F.2d 802, 812 (4th Cir.1991). Further, inasmuch as the court will grant the defendants' motions to dismiss,Dobson has not clearly shown that he is likely to succeed on the merits of his claims. Finally, Dobson fails to allege that the balance of the equities tips in his favor or that the public interest would be served with a preliminary injunction. Accordingly, the court will deny Motion...