Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-3_04-cv-00273/USCOURTS-ared-3_04-cv-00273-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

JONESBORO DIVISION

STEVEN VICTOR BOND PLAINTIFF

VS. CASE NO. 3:04CV00273 JAM

DICK BUSBY, CRITTENDEN COUNTY

SHERIFF; AND JOHN AND JANE DOES, EMPLOYEES OF

THE CRITTENDEN COUNTY DETENTION CENTER DEFENDANTS

ORDER

Pending before the Court is defendant Dick Busby’s Motion for Summary Judgment and

plaintiff’s response. For the reasons stated below defendant Busby’s motion is granted.

Plaintiff brings a claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 contending that Busby and other

members of the Crittenden County Detention Center staff violated his Eighth Amendment rights

by intentionally denying or delaying access to treatment for his serious medical needs. 

Defendant contends that (1) defendant Busby did not participate in defendant’s medical

treatment and, consequently, cannot be held liable on a vicarious liability theory for defendant’s

treatment; (2) that defendant Busby is entitled to qualified immunity; and (3) that plaintiff has

failed to offer sufficient proof of any policy or custom of Crittenden County that was

unconstitutional which is a requirement for any of the defendants to be held liable in their official

capacity. Lastly defendant argues that plaintiff has failed to present any proof of a physical

injury as required by 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e). 

Plaintiff was incarcerated on September 15, 2001. On September 20, 2001 he was

examined by a doctor who recommended that he receive a veins Doppler test. (Pl. Ex.# 8 and

Case 3:04-cv-00273-JMM Document 31 Filed 04/06/06 Page 1 of 6
2

Def. Ex. #2.) Plaintiff told the doctor that he suffered from diabetes and hypertension, and was

experiencing pain. (Def. Ex. #2) Plaintiff received medication for his diabetes on November

1, 2001. (Pl. Ex. #1).

The record reflects that plaintiff’s medications and diabetic conditions were on file with

the jail from a previous arrest. (Pl. Ex. #2 & #9). Plaintiff’s wife states that she called

defendant Busby the day before Thanksgiving in 2001 to complain of her husband’s treatment. 

(Pl. Ex. #5).

 Plaintiff wrote the nurse on November 30, 2001 complaining that that he had not

received his high blood pressure medication or a diabetic diet. (Def. Ex. #3). He also informed

the nurse of pain and swelling in his legs and feet. (Def. Ex. #3). Plaintiff saw the nurse on

December 4, 2001 who noted on his chart that plaintiff was in pain, had swelling, did not have

high blood pressure medication prescribed, and had not had his Doppler test. (Def. Ex. #2)

 Plaintiff received a medical release from the Crittenden County Detention Center on

December 5, 2001. (Def. Ex. #4).

Plaintiff was found to be disabled as of August 1, 2003 due to diabetes with peripheral

neuropathy, status post surgery on the right knee, degenerative joint disease of the left ankle,

bursitis of the left shoulder, and history of cellulitis in the lower extremities. (Pl. Ex. # 6). At

this same time, plaintiff’s high blood pressure was described as controlled. Id.

Case 3:04-cv-00273-JMM Document 31 Filed 04/06/06 Page 2 of 6
1

There is no dispute that plaintiff suffered from diabetes and high blood pressure.

3

Defendant Busby will be liable in his individual capacity if he knew of plaintiff’s serious

medical needs1

 and deliberately disregarded it. See Vaughn v. Greene County, 438 F.3d 845 (8th

Cir. 2006). There is no evidence that was the case. Here, plaintiff has failed to allege or offer 

evidence that defendant Busby had any personal involvement in any decision to deny or delay his

medical treatment. See Vaughn v. Greene County, 438 F.3d 845 (8th Cir. 2006) (doctrine of

respondeat superior is inapplicable to section 1983 claims). 

The statement from plaintiff’s wife that she called defendant Busby the day before

Thanksgiving in 2001 is insufficient to establish that Busby intentionally denied or delayed

treatment to plaintiff. In fact, this evidence reflects that after this phone call, and the receipt by

the nurse of the note on November 30, 2001, actions were taken. Plaintiff met with a nurse on

December 4, 2001 and was released for medical reasons on December 5, 2001. Any claim

against Busby in his individual capacity is dismissed. 

The remaining defendants who were sued in their individual as well as official capacities

are shielded from liability in their individual capacities based upon their qualified immunity

if “ their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a

reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818, 102 S.Ct.

2727, 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982)

“Under the Fourteenth Amendment, pretrial detainees are entitled to ‘at least as great’

protection as that afforded convicted prisoners under the Eighth Amendment.” Vaughn v. Greene

County, 438 F.3d 845, 850 (8th Cir. 2006). Under the Eighth Amendment, a prisoner’s rights

are violated if an official intentionally denies or delays an inmate's prescribed treatment. See

Case 3:04-cv-00273-JMM Document 31 Filed 04/06/06 Page 3 of 6
4

Dulany v. Carnahan, 132 F.3d 1234, 1239 (8th Cir.1997); Beyerbach v. Sears, 49 F.3d 1324,

1326 (8th Cir. 1995), abrogation on other grounds recognized by Reece v. Groose, 60 F.3d 487

(8th Cir. 1995) (delay in medical care constitutes cruel and unusual punishment for inmate when

deprivation alleged was objectively serious and the prison official was deliberately indifferent to

the inmate's health or safety).

Plaintiff’s evidence is that he was denied a diabetes diet, denied his diabetes medicines

for forty-one days; denied his blood pressure medicine for the duration of his incarceration, and

denied a veins Doppler test. It is disputed whether these denials were intentional. The time

between plaintiff’s first examination by a doctor and his receipt of diabetes medicine raises an

inference that the failure to provide medications was more than inadvertent. Cf. King v. Busby,

2006 WL 122424 (Jan. 18, 2006) (unpublished). 

There is also a dispute on whether plaintiff had a prescription for blood pressure medicine

during the 2001 incarceration. The notes taken by the nurse on December 4, 2001 stated that

plaintiff did not have a prescription for blood pressure medication at that time.

These disputes preclude the grant of summary judgment for these defendants in their

individual capacities based upon qualified immunity.

The remaining claims against Busby and the other defendants are made in their official

capacities which amount to claims against Crittenden County. Spencer v. Knapheide Truck

Equip. Co., 183 F.3d 902, 905 (8th Cir.1999) (official-capacity claims against police board

members must be treated as claims against municipality). 

To survive a summary judgment motion on these claims, plaintiff must present evidence

that would raise a material issue of facts as to whether the county officials acted in accordance

Case 3:04-cv-00273-JMM Document 31 Filed 04/06/06 Page 4 of 6
5

with an official policy or widespread custom or practice in denying him his rights. See 

Springdale Educ. Ass'n v. Springdale Sch. Dist., 133 F.3d 649, 651 (8th Cir. 1998) ( liability

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 exists if there is evidence that the alleged violation resulted from either

an official policy or a widespread custom or practice of the city). 

There is no evidence that Crittenden County had a policy of ignoring or delaying medical

treatment to prisoners or pre-trial detainees. To the contrary there is evidence that Crittenden

County had an inmate medical care policy which required initial health screenings and a process

whereby jailors where to promptly obtain any prescribed medications in use by inmates when

they were admitted to the facility. (Def. Ex. #5). 

Thus, the issue becomes whether Crittenden County Detention Center had a custom of

ignoring or delaying medical treatment to its inmates that would amount to violations of their

rights. “A municipal custom is a practice of municipal officials that is not authorized by written

law, but which is ‘so permanent and well-settled AAA as to [have] the force of law.’ ” Harris v. City

of Pagedale, 821 F.2d 499, 504 n. 7 (8th Cir. 1987). 

 Plaintiff was admitted into the Crittenden County Detention Center on September 15,

2001 and he did not receive his diabetes medicine until November 1, 2001. There is no evidence

that he ever received medication for his high blood pressure or was given a veins Doppler test. 

While plaintiff has presented evidence that, in his case, treatment for his diabetes and

high blood pressure was delayed or denied, and that he suffered pain as a result of these actions,

he has failed to present any evidence that Crittenden County Detention Center had a practice of

routinely ignoring or delaying medical treatment to inmates. The Court notes that there is

evidence in this case that on a prior incarceration in 2000 and subsequent incarceration in 2002,

Case 3:04-cv-00273-JMM Document 31 Filed 04/06/06 Page 5 of 6
6

plaintiff was given his medicine (Pl. Ex. #2) (Def. Ex. #2 p. 4). 

The motion for summary judgment on the claims against Busby in his individual and

official capacities and the claims against all the defendants in their official capacities is granted

(#13). The claims against the remaining defendants in their individual capacities are still before

the Court. 

With the exception of defendant Deputy Love, the remaining defendants are unnamed.

Plaintiff is given up to, and including, May 6, 2006 to amend his complaint to name these John

Doe defendants and to complete service. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4. Because it has been more than

120 days since plaintiff filed his complaint, he is given notice that the Court will dismiss the

action without prejudice against Deputy Love unless plaintiff can show good cause for failure to

complete service upon this defendant. Plaintiff is given up to, and including, April 20, 2006 to

show good cause for failure to complete service upon Deputy Love.

Defendant Busby’s motion for summary judgment is granted (#13).

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 6 day of April, 2006.

 

James M. Moody

United States District Judge

Case 3:04-cv-00273-JMM Document 31 Filed 04/06/06 Page 6 of 6