Mason v. Eddy, Case No.: 1:18 CV 2968

MATT MASON, et al., Plaintiffs v. ANDREW EDDY, et al., Defendants

Case No.: 1:18 CV 2968

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

August 9, 2019

JUDGE SOLOMON OLIVER, JR.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiffs Matt Mason, Jeffrey D. Mann, Edward McMillen, Robert Fleischer, and Kenneth Waybright are prisoners in the custody of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction ("ODRC"). They bring this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that defendants have violated their constitutional rights under the Eighth Amendment. (Compl., ECF No. 1).

For the reasons that follow, this action is dismissed. Plaintiffs' motion to certify claims as a class action (ECF No. 7), motion to appoint class counsel (ECF No. 6), motion for service of summons (ECF No. 11), and motion for judgment on the motion for service of summons (ECF No. 12) are moot, and denied as such. Fleischer's motion for a preliminary injunction (ECF No. 13) is denied.

II. BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs Mason, Mann, McMillen, and Fleischer are confined at the Grafton Correctional Institution ("GCI"). Plaintiff Waybright is confined and the Allen Correctional Institution ("ACI"). All Plaintiffs allege that various defendants were deliberately indifferent to their serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. Plaintiffs describe the seventeen defendants as follows: (1) Andrew Eddy, Chairman of the ODRC medical review committee which makes determinations concerning the health care provided to ODRC prisoners (Compl. ¶ 4); (2) Mona Parks, Chief Medical Officer for the ODRC and member of the ODRC medical review committee which makes determinations concerning the health care provided to ODRC prisoners (id. ¶ 5); (3) LaShann Eppinger, Warden GCI, who allegedly inserted himself into the denial of medical care of one or more Plaintiffs (id. ¶ 6); (4) David Hannah, GCI health care administrator, responsible for overseeing the provision of healthcare to GCI prisoners and allegedly personally responsible for the delay or denial of healthcare to Plaintiffs (id. ¶ 7); (5) Todd Houghlen, chief medical officer and primary care physician at GCI (later transferred to Lorain Correctional Institution) who allegedly denied or delayed medical care to Plaintiffs (id. ¶ 8); (6) Janice Douglas, chief medical officer and primary care physician at GCI, who allegedly denied or delayed medical care to Plaintiffs (id. ¶ 9); (7) Nurse Mitchell, GCI pharmacy nurse responsible for issuing prescribed medications to Plaintiffs (id. ¶ 10); (8) Linda Hancock, GCI nurse practitioner (id. ¶ 11); (9) Katharine Beltz, GCI nurse practitioner (id. ¶ 12); (10) GCI nurse practitioner Ajuko (id. ¶ 13); (11) Chief medical officer and primary care physician who allegedly denied or delayed medical care to prisoners at ACI (id. ¶ 14); (12) Unknown nurses who provided healthcare to prisoners at ACI (id. ¶ 15); (13) Llyod Brownlee, GCI Inspector of Institutional Services responsiblefor investigating institutional services and compliance with federal and state statutes and codes (id. ¶ 16); (14) Tina Costello (nee Grudzien), GCI Inspector of Institutional Services responsible for investigating institutional services and compliance with federal and state statutes and codes (later transferred to Lorain Correctional Institution) (id. ¶ 17); (15) Karen Stanforth, ODRC Assistant Chief Inspector responsible for investigation of alleged violations of state and federal laws and codes (id. ¶ 18); (16) Gary C. Mohr, Director ODRC responsible for oversight of the ODRC and ensuring compliance with federal state laws and codes, including the provision of adequate medical care (id. ¶ 19); and (17) Unknown ODRC and contract health care employees who committed any act that contributed to the delay or denial of medial treatment to any Ohio prisoner (id. ¶ 20).

Plaintiffs allege that named and unnamed defendants are deliberately indifferent to their respective serious medical needs, as well as the serious medical needs of "similarly situated"¹ Ohio prisoners, in violation of the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment (id. ¶¶ 116-121). In the Complaint, Plaintiffs refer to and attach the internal complaints, grievances, and appeals they filed in connection with the deliberate indifference claims asserted here. (See ECF No. 1-5). Plaintiffs' allegations are summarized below. The court will provide greater detail as appropriate in the analysis of each Plaintiffs' claims.

Mason

Plaintiff Mason asserts claims against Hancock, Hannah, Costello, and Stanforth. Mason states he was prescribed Lisinopril high blood pressure medication by Houghlen and Douglas. He alleges that around August 24, 2017, Hancock discontinued the Lisinopril, noting in his file that someone should let him know of the medication change. Mason claims he was not told of the medication change and did not learn of it until September 2017, when his refill for Lisinopril was declined. Plaintiff filed an internal complaint on October 2, 2017, which he escalated to a grievance, then an appeal. Hannah, Costello, and Stanforth, respectively, investigated and responded Mason's claims regarding the discontinuation of Lisinopril. Mason claims their responses that he was told of the medication change (which was made because Lisinopril could not be taken with Motrin), and that he received the substitute medication (Norvasc) on August 29, 2017, are false. That said, Mason acknowledges that he received what he characterizes as an "unknown drug" on October 24, 2017, but states that he did not take the medication until he met with Beltz in December 2017. Mason alleges that during this period, he was deprived of high blood pressure medication in violation of the Eighth Amendment, which resulted in a myocardial infarction. (Compl. ¶¶ 34-40; ECF No. 1-5 at 1-2).

Mann

Plaintiff Mann asserts claims against Mitchell, Hannah, Brownlee, and Stanforth. Mann alleges that Beltz prescribed six medications for him, but when he went to pick up those medications on May 24, 2018, Mitchell did not provide all six medications and issued two medications that were discontinued. Mann states that when he tried to talk with Mitchell about the dispensing errors, she was rude and dismissive. Mann filed an informal complaint, grievance and appeal. In thecomplaint, Mann states that Mitchell's error was a "simple oversight" and that he will "get the correct meds soon" but Mitchell's behavior and attitude was unacceptable and she should be instructed "to use more caution" in dispensing medication. (ECF No. 1-5 at 4). Mann claims that when Douglas rewrote his prescriptions to clear up any confusion, Mitchell still provided only five of the six, claiming that the doctor had not ordered his arthritis pain medication, which Mann states was false and Mitchell's failure to fill the prescription was retaliatory. (Id. at 9 ("Ms. Mitchell [cannot] be allowed to pick and choose which prescriptions she fills or does not fill. I am not the only person [whose] medication has been delayed/[withheld].")). According to Mann, Hannah, Brownlee, and Stanforth did not fully investigate or adequately respond to his complaint, grievance, or appeal, and their statement that the doctor did not order pain medication until July 17, 2018, which is why Mann did not receive the medication until July 19, 2018, is false. Mann claims that Mitchell, Brownlee, Hannah, and Stanforth's conduct with respect to his prescription medications constitutes deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. (See Compl. ¶¶ 49-60; ECF No. 1-5 at 4-9).

McMillan

Plaintiff McMillan asserts his claims against Houghlen, Douglas, Hannah, Eddy, Parks, and Mohr. McMillan alleges that he has a chronic knee problem, which he describes as severe and debilitating. He claims that he has "repeatedly" sought appropriate medical care from Houghlen, Douglas and Hannah. Douglas performed an X-ray of his knee, diagnosed him with mild arthritis and prescribed Mobic and a knee brace. Douglas concluded that based upon the X-ray, an orthopedic consult was not warranted. McMillan requested an MRI, but Douglas responded that "protocols" do not provide for the requested testing. McMillan asserts that Eddy, Parks, and Mohr,are "presumably" responsible for such protocols. McMillan insists that he has not been properly tested and diagnosed because of protocols in place to control costs, and that failure to perform an MRI to properly diagnosis his knee based upon cost constitutes deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. (Compl. ¶¶ 61-66; ECF No. 1-5 at 10-11).

Fleischer

Plaintiff Fleischer asserts claim against Douglas, Hannah, Adams, Ajuko, Brownlee, Eppinger, and Stanforth. Fleischer claims that he suffers from multiple serious medical conditions, and his deliberate indifference claims relate to: (1) dental care, (2) hypoallergenic soap, (3) infection care, and (4) HIV medication. With respect to the first, Fleischer states that all of his teeth have been removed and he cannot properly chew his food, and that he has been on a waiting list for dentures more than a year, constituting deliberate indifference to his serious medical need.

As to the soap, Fleischer contends that he had a lifetime prescription for hypoallergenic soap which allegedly "expired" and Hannah "grudgingly" provided him with six bars, but no more was provided thereafter due to cost. Fleischer alleges that he is allergic to all of the soaps in the commissary, which cause him to experience skin outbreaks and infections, and Hannah's refusal to provide the hypoallergenic soap due to cost constitutes deliberate indifference to his health.

Fleischer's claim regarding infection care has three components. The first relates to a spider that became infected in April 2018. Fleischer was seen by Douglas who "handed him a few antibiotics." When the infection...