Washington v. Monroe

JOHNNIE P. WASHINGTON, Plaintiff, v. VALERIE MONROE, medical provider, Defendant.

16-cv-9090 (NSR)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

FILED: March 12, 2019

March 11, 2019

ORDER & OPINION

NELSON S. ROMÁN, United States District Judge

Johnnie Washington ("Plaintiff" or "Washington"), an incarcerated pro se litigant, commenced this action against Valerie Monroe ("Defendant" or "Monroe"), pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (See Complaint ("Compl."), ECF No. 2.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendants is liable for violating his Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishments because she did not refill his medicines for cholesterol and moderate hypertension, which allegedly caused him severe headaches, nose bleeds, and chest pain. (Compl. ¶ V). Consequently, Plaintiff seeks $9,000.00 in damages and to have Monroe removed as his healthcare provider. (Id. ¶ VI.)

Presently before the Court is Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Motion for Summary Judgment, ("Defendant's Motion"), ECF No. 48.) For the reasons discussed below, Defendant's Motion is GRANTED.

I. BACKGROUND

The facts below are taken from the parties' Rule 56.1 statements, affidavits, declarations, and exhibits, and are not in dispute except where so noted. All rational inferences are drawn in Plaintiff's favor.

Plaintiff is an inmate in the custody of New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision ("DOCCS"). He is currently incarcerated at Sing Sing Correctional Facility. Defendant is a nurse practitioner employed by DOCCS who served as a healthcare provider at Sing Sing from 2007 to the present.

On January 2, 2015, Plaintiff, who is serving sentence of 25 years to life, was transferred from Southport Correctional Facility to Sing Sing. Plaintiff was brought to the medical department on January 2, 2015 and given an initial examination and orientation. Monroe was not present at this initial medical visit.

Every inmate is given an initial medical examination within the first few days of being transferred from another facility. During this initial medical examination, Plaintiff's medical history was reviewed, and his prescription medication was discussed. Plaintiff arrived at Sing Sing with an existing medical order for two prescription medications. The first medication was Atorvastatin and the second was Hydrochlorothiazide. Altorvastatin controls high cholesterol. Hydrochlorothiazide is a water pill prescribed to treat Plaintiff's moderate hypertension. Plaintiff has been on both of these medications for many years. Plaintiff has received these medications at other correctional facilities prior to arriving at Sing Sing.

In or about this time, although the precise date is disputed, a new prescription was issued for Plaintiff for both of his medications. He was provided a 30-day supply and given 5 refills on his prescription. At his new inmate orientation, the policy and procedure for obtaining medication at Sing Sing was thoroughly explained to him and put into writing. The parties dispute what information was relayed to Plaintiff. Defendant claims that it was explained that to refill a prescription, plaintiff needed to notify the pharmacy before his medication was due to run out, that Plaintiff was to report to "sick call" one week before his medication runs out if he had no refills left, and also to report to sick call if he did not receive his medication within three days after his request was submitted. Plaintiff claims that he was told that if he had problems receiving his refills, he should write to Monroe, who would personally handle the delay of refills.

Plaintiff's medications are given to him in 30 days increments and he is allowed to keep possession of the medication in his cell. This is called having "self-carry" medication. According to Defendant, "self-carry" inmates are expected to cooperate in their own health care and to take their medication when prescribed. They are also responsible for obtaining their own refills of their prescriptions through the pharmacy. According to Plaintiff, self-carry inmates are not required to report to sick call when their last refill expires. Rather, Plaintiff states that Monroe told him to write to his healthcare provider and submit a call slip when his last refill expired. Plaintiff further states that he never had problems getting refills of his medication until May 2015, and that when he started submitting his sick call slips at that time, as required, he received no answers.

Plaintiff met with Monroe for the first time on January 14, 2015. During the meeting, all the interactions with Monroe were professional. Defendant claims that at the initial meeting, sheinformed Plaintiff that if he had any problems or needed to see her, he should report to sick call. Plaintiff claims otherwise. He states that she instructed him to write to her and submit a call slip.

Monroe saw Plaintiff again at a scheduled chronic care visit on February 18, 2015. During this meeting, his compliance with medication was discussed. Plaintiff confided in Monroe that he does not always take his Atorvastatin because that is for lowering his cholesterol only when it is high whereas he always needs to take hydrochlorothiazide. Monroe counseled Plaintiff and told him that he should take his medication as prescribed.

Plaintiff refilled his prescription successfully in January and February. According to Defendant, he declined to seek a refill in March, but again successfully refilled his medication in the middle of April 2015. Plaintiff claims that it was in March/April when he began "having problems receiving medication." Basically, Plaintiff claims that he got an emergency refill in March, but then began having issues and started filling out sick call slips and writing letters to the nurse and grievance committee, explaining that he had not received his medication refills.

Plaintiff's initial prescription expired on June 2, 2015. Plaintiff did not see Monroe again until September 19, 2015. This is the first time that Monroe became aware that Plaintiff had not gotten his medication during the months of June, July, and August 2015. Upon learning that Plaintiff needed a new prescription for medication, she wrote him a new prescription for another 6 months immediately. Plaintiff claims that during those months he "still did not receive refill medication ever."

During the time period of June through September 2015, he did not see Monroe in person. At no period during that time did Plaintiff seek to go to sick call because he was feeling bad.Plaintiff does state that, during this time, he wrote several letters to the pharmacy and one to Monroe, dated July 14, 2015. Plaintiff claims that his letters referenced and requested "sick call." Plaintiff further states that, during this time period, he had occasional pain and "bad headaches." Monroe never received any letter from Plaintiff and therefore had no communication with Plaintiff from February 18, 2015 through September 2015. Monroe does not work in the pharmacy.

The pharmacy is separate from the medical department in the prison. The pharmacy does not contact the medical center if an inmate does not fill a prescription. Inmates are responsible for refilling their own prescriptions. Each medical provider has approximately 300 inmates assigned to their care. Medical providers are not informed by the pharmacy if the inmate chooses to refill his prescription. Plaintiff, however, states that he has been prescribed hydrochlorothiazide since 1994 and knows that he needs to refill it when his "severe headaches occur."

Because Plaintiff refused to go to sick call, Monroe was unaware that Plaintiff had not received his medications until she saw him in September 2015, at which point, she immediately acted. When Monroe saw him in September 2015, he was not in grave danger. He only complained of minor headaches and did not require further testing or additional medical treatment. Plaintiff claims that, at this time, he was placed on "call out."

II. STANDARDS OF REVIEW

A. Summary Judgment Standard

Pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 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). The moving party bearsthe initial burden of pointing to evidence in the record, "including depositions, documents . . . [and] affidavits or declarations," see Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(A), "which it believes demonstrate[s] the absence of a genuine issue of material fact," Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). The moving party may support an assertion that there is no genuine dispute of a particular fact by "showing . . . that [the] adverse party cannot produce admissible evidence to support the fact." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(B). If the moving party fulfills its preliminary burden, the onus shifts to the nonmoving party to raise the existence of a genuine issue of material fact. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(A); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 252 (1986).

A genuine dispute of material fact exists when "the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248; accord Gen. Star Nat'l Ins. Co. v. Universal Fabricators, Inc., 585 F.3d 662, 669 (2d Cir. 2009); Roe v. City of Waterbury, 542 F.3d 31, 35 (2d Cir. 2008); Benn v. Kissane, 510 F. App'x 34, 36 (2d Cir. 2013) (summary order). Courts must "draw all rational inferences in the non-movant's favor," while reviewing the record. Kirkland v. Cablevision Sys., 760 F.3d 223, 224 (2d Cir. 2014) (citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986)). Importantly, "the judge's function is not himself to weigh the evidence and determine the truth of the matter," nor is it to determine a witness's credibility. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249; see also Kaytor v. Elec. Boat Corp., ...