Spencer v. Garden

322 F.Supp.3d 1205

Steve SPENCER, representative of the Estate of Brian Maguire, Plaintiff,

v.Dr. Richard GARDEN, et al., Defendants.

Case No. 2:10–cv–00626

United States District Court, D. Utah.

Signed June 28, 2018

Eli W. McCann, Salt Lake City, UT, for Plaintiff.

Kyle J. Kaiser, Salt Lake City, UT, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT MILLER'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

HONORABLE BRUCE S. JENKINS, United States District Court Judge

INTRODUCTION

This case is about the medical care provided to Brian Maguire, an inmate who was incarcerated at the Utah State Prison. All defendants and all claims have been dismissed except for one: the Fifth Claim for Relief stated in Plaintiff's Amended Complaint.¹ In this claim, Maguire alleges that from 8:30 p.m. through 5:00 a.m. on the night of June 15–16, 2008, the "counting officer"—one of John Does # 5, # 6, or # 7—failed to contact medical to respond to Maguire's requests for help, following a "man down call" in which he was treated for seizure symptoms, and failed to document the requests.² Maguire later alleged that Sergeant Jerry Miller was "John Doe # 5."³

Before, during, or after the "man down" incident, Maguire suffered a stroke. He alleges that Sgt. Miller's failure to respond to alleged requests for help, failure to take action before the man down, failure to affirmatively follow-up on Maguire's condition, and failure to pass on information about Maguire's condition to corrections officers taking over the next shift violated Maguire's Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment, and that such deliberate indifference caused or exacerbated his stroke.

Sgt. Miller moved for summary judgment, arguing that he was not deliberately indifferent to any serious medical need, or, in the alternative, that the rights asserted by Maguire were not clearly established on the date of the incident.⁴ Maguire opposed the motion, and oral argument was held on June 15, 2018. At oral argument, the Court determined that there is a lack of admissible evidence to suggest that Defendant Miller acted with deliberate indifference to Plaintiff's serious medical needs. For the reasons stated at the hearing, and for the reasons stated herein, Defendant Miller's Motion for Summary Judgment will be granted.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

The following facts, viewed in a light most favorable to Maguire, form the basis of the Court's order:⁵

Sergeant Jerry Miller was, at all relevant times, employed as a sergeant with the Utah Department of Corrections. He was on duty in the Uinta 5 unit of the Utah State Prison in Draper, Utah, at about 7:40 p.m. July 15, 2008 when a "man down" call came out for Plaintiff Brian Maguire, an inmate housed in the unit.⁶ At that time, Maguire was displaying symptoms consistent with a seizure: he was convulsing, shaking, couldn't control his hand, and "flopping around like a fish."⁷ That led other inmates in the housing unit to call for assistance.⁸

Sgt. Miller heard the man down call and responded.⁹ Two prison med-techs (EMTs) Craig Jensen and Rodger Macfarlane, who were already in the building, responded.¹⁰ By the time they arrived, Maguire was responsive and communicative.¹¹ The med-techs took Maguire's vital signs, spoke with him, and determined that he likely had a seizure.¹² Consistent with the common practice for treating a seizure, the med-techs told Maguire to place his mattress on the floor to ensure that he would not injure himself if he had another seizure that night and suggested that he see a physician in the morning.¹³ They told him that if he had additional problems, to alert Sgt. Miller, and then they would come and talk to him.¹⁴ After the med-techs provided care, they left.¹⁵

One of the tasks to be completed following the incident was the "count" of inmates at 8:30 p.m., about forty-five minutes after the end of the incident.¹⁶ This was a "stand-up" count where officers required the inmates to stand up to be counted and had to match the inmates with a log book containing photographs of their faces.¹⁷ Two officers are responsible for completing the 8:30 count.¹⁸

Though Sgt. Miller does not remember being part of the 8:30 count,¹⁹ documents indicate he played a role, and the Court accepts that he participated in the count for the purpose of this motion.²⁰ When one of the counting officers came to Maguire, the counting officer asked Maguire to get up.²¹ Maguire told the counting officer "I can't stand up, I can't even sit up."²² Though the counting officer threatened to report Maguire for refusing a direct order, no sanction came "because obviously [the counting officer] talked to the other officers that were they, and they told him that it was a disputation where ... they had received instructions from medical to leave me on the floor ...."²³

Maguire has never described any interaction with Sgt. Miller during the 8:30 incident.²⁴ Maguire never alleged that he asked Sgt. Miller—or anyone—for help immediately following the man-down incident or at the 8:30 count.²⁵

It was not until 9 or 9:30 p.m. that Maguire himself believed he needed further medical assistance.²⁶ Starting at the 10:30 p.m. count (the next count after the 8:30 count), and continuing on through the night, Maguire specifically asked the officer performing each count to get medical, because he was having cramping muscle twitches.²⁷ Maguire did not yell for help, or call "man down" as had been done before because he did not want to disturb any other sleeping inmates.²⁸ At some point, perhaps by the 2:00 a.m. or 3:00 a.m. count, the officers simply stopped coming by Maguire's cell.²⁹

But Sgt. Miller was not there to hear any requests for aid, nor observe Maguire's condition, because Sgt. Miller's shift ended at 10:00 p.m. that night.³⁰ After the 8:30 p.m. count, Miller had no more interaction with Maguire that day.³¹

At the pill line the next morning, Maguire complained of left-sided weakness.³² He was taken to the infirmary, and prison medical staff sent him to the hospital.³³ He was diagnosed as having a stroke.³⁴ He was returned to prison and was regularly treated for the effects of the stroke.³⁵ Maguire was later also diagnosed with terminal liver cancer, a condition unrelated to the stroke or seizures.³⁶ He passed away in 2015 from the cancer.³⁷

Before he passed away, Maguire sued medical staff, the responding med-techs, and Sgt. Miller, alleging they were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs, not only in responding to the man down call, but in a variety of ways in treating a variety of Maguire's ailments.³⁸ In a previous order, a judge of this Court granted summary judgment to most of the medical staff but denied summary judgment to the two med-techs and Sgt. Miller.³⁹ The Tenth Circuit reversed as to the med-techs, granting them summary judgment, but determined it did not have jurisdiction to reach Sgt. Miller's appeal and dismissed it.⁴⁰

The only claim remaining is Maguire's deliberate indifference claim lodged against Sgt. Miller. After remand, the parties engaged in limited discovery, and Sgt. Miller then moved for summary judgment. In his motion, Sgt. Miller asserts that, as a matter of law, he was not deliberately indifferent to any serious risk of harm to Maguire. By raising the defense of qualified immunity, he also asserts that any rights claimed to be violated by Maguire were not clearly established at the time of the incident.

LEGAL STANDARD

Sgt. Miller's summary-judgment motion is governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. Summary judgment shall be granted to the moving party when the record shows "that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a) ; see also Jones v. Salt Lake County , 503 F.3d 1147, 1152–53 (10th Cir. 2007) (citing former Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c) ). Sgt. Miller has the initial burden to establish the absence of material fact to support the non-moving party's claims. Jensen v. Kimble , 1 F.3d 1073, 1076 (10th Cir.1993) (citing Celotex Corp. v. Catrett , 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986) ). In so doing, he may cite to particular parts of materials in the record supporting the fact, or may show that the cited materials "do not establish the absence ... of a genuine dispute, or that an adverse party cannot produce admissible evidence to support the fact." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(A)–(B). If the non-movant fails to meet his burden as to one element of a claim, summary judgment is appropriate on the claim. Celotex Corp. , 477 U.S. at 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548

Sgt. Miller has raised the defense of qualified immunity to Maguire's claims. Qualified immunity shields government officials who perform discretionary functions from § 1983 damages suits so long as "their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." Pearson v. Callahan , 555 U.S. 223, 231, 129 S.Ct. 808, 172 L.Ed.2d 565 (2009) (quoting Harlow v. Fitzgerald , 457 U.S. 800, 818, 102 S.Ct. 2727, 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982) ).

Qualified immunity "is ‘an immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability ... it is effectively lost if a case is erroneously permitted to go to trial’ [and was created] to ensure that ‘insubstantial claims’ against government officials [will] be resolved prior to discovery." Pearson , 555 U.S. at 231, 129 S.Ct. 808 (quoting Mitchell v. Forsyth , 472 U.S. 511, 526, 105 S.Ct. 2806, 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985) ); Anderson v. Creighton , 483 U.S. 635, 640 n.2, 107 S.Ct. 3034, 97 L.Ed.2d 523 (1987) (further citations and quotations omitted) ). The doctrine protects "all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law." Ashcroft v. al-Kidd , 563 U.S. 731, 743, 131 S.Ct. 2074, 179 L.Ed.2d 1149 (2011) (citations and quotations omitted).

When a state official asserts qualified immunity, she creates a rebuttable...