Stewart v. Mason

1

JOHN B. STEWART, Plaintiff, v. KEN MASON, Sheriff, Kennebec County, et al., Defendants

No. 1:21-cv-00321-LEW

United States District Court, D. Maine

March 1, 2023

ORDER

LANCE E. WALKER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

In this action, Plaintiff John B. Stewart contends that the Defendants, Kennebec County Sheriff Ken Mason, Jail Administrator Bryan Slaney and other Kennebec County personnel, a nurse practitioner employed by Correctional Health Partners, and a licensed practical nurse employed by Maxim Healthcare all demonstrated deliberate indifference toward his medical needs during a recent period of incarceration.

The matter comes before the Court on the Plaintiff's and the Defendants' motions for summary judgment. For reasons that follow, judgment will enter in favor of the Defendants.

Background

The following background statement is drawn from the parties' statements of material facts. See D. Me. Loc. R. 56. The Court will adopt a statement of fact if it is supported by a citation to record evidence and if the opposing party fails to dispute it or qualify it with his own statements and record citations. See id.^[1]

Plaintiff was incarcerated at the Kennebec County Jail between May and November 2021. When he arrived at the jail, Plaintiff was in very poor health with several diagnosed conditions, including gout and Type II diabetes. He maintains that he also reported bleeding internally (evidently from ulcers) and anemia. However, during his initial screening Plaintiff did not complain of any intestinal issues. By all appearances Plaintiff's medical condition makes him quite miserable and lethargic, even outside of the jail setting. Plaintiff and his family members were concerned that his medical problems would not receive adequate care at the jail.

Beginning in July, Plaintiff experienced repeated instances of bleeding from his rectum. Within a week he was seen at Maine General Hospital for a medical examination, including a colonoscopy. Providers within the jail setting understood that Plaintiff's bleeding condition, though serious, was not life threatening. At the hospital, a provider removed several non-cancerous polyps from Plaintiff's colon. Follow up care was established and was unremarkable. There is nothing to suggest that care providers at the hospital identified or treated any other emergency medical concerns.

Upon his return to the jail, Plaintiff continued to feel miserable due to his assortment of ailments, and there continued to be blood in his stool. The hospital reached out to schedule a follow-up colonoscopy within the next three to six months within which time Plaintiff was released from incarceration. The record supports the finding that the Defendants' approach to Plaintiff's medical care did not place Plaintiff's life or health in jeopardy or result in tangible harm to his person, though Plaintiff's subjective account is that his sojourn in the jail subtracted years from his life and probably resulted in injury to his internal organs and brain. Other than Plaintiff's subjective complaints, the record does not support a finding that the Defendants withheld care that they understood would significantly alleviate his misery or was necessary to avoid an emergent, substantial risk of serious harm.

Discussion

The Federal Rule of Civil Procedure permits parties to litigation to request the entry of summary judgment on claims or defenses based on the evidence collected and exchanged during the discovery phase of the case. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56. Summary judgment is appropriate “if the movant 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). Additionally, even if the non-moving party demonstrates the existence of evidence that can overcome the moving party's record representations, it will not be enough to preclude summary judgment if the resulting facts, viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, would not permit a reasonable factfinder to resolve the associated legal issue in favor of the non-movant. IDS Prop. Cas. Ins. Co. v. Gov't Employees Ins. Co., Inc., 985 F.3d 41, 52 (1st Cir. 2021); Mulvihill v. Top-Flite Golf Co., 335 F.3d 15, 19 (1st Cir. 2003). Nor can the non-movant overcome a summary judgment motion if essential elements of his proof depend on “improbable inferences, acrimonious invective, or rank speculation.” Ahern v. Shinseki, 629 F.3d 49 54 (1st Cir. 2010).

The federal claim in this case is a claim of deliberate indifference to serious medical need, made actionable by the federal Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The standard for proving such a claim is onerous. “[D]eliberate indifference describes a state of mind more blameworthy than negligence,” but less culpable than acting or failing to act “for the very purpose of...