Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01320/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01320-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-1320

___________

Willie Munn, *

*

Appellant, *

*

v. * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

Rick Toney, Warden, Varner Unit, * District of Eastern Arkansas

ADC; Gates, Security Guard, Varner *

Unit, ADC; Lt. Bass, Varner Unit, * 

ADC, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: December 20, 2005

Filed: January 18, 2006

___________

Before BYE, McMILLIAN, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.

___________

McMILLIAN, Circuit Judge.

Arkansas prisoner Willie Munn appeals from the final decision entered in the

District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983

action following a pretrial evidentiary hearing. For reversal, Munn argues the district

court erred in separating his missed-medication claim from his missed-monitoring

claim, and he suffered injury from not receiving his blood-pressure medication for

nine days. For the reasons discussed below, we reverse and remand.

Appellate Case: 05-1320 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/18/2006 Entry ID: 1998082
-2-

Munn filed this action against Varner Super Maximum Security Unit Warden

Rick Toney, Officer Gates, and Lieutenant Bass, claiming they were deliberately

indifferent to his serious medical needs, in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

According to his complaint attachments, on May 19, 2003, Nurse Jan Alexander

issued a treatment order that required checking Munn’s blood pressure and heart rate

twice on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays from May19 to June 19, 2003. On May

21, Munn filed a grievance asserting he told Gates that he had high blood pressure

treatment and Gates called Bass, who did not comply with the prescribed treatment.

Warden Toney responded on June 12 that Munn had not been taken to the infirmary

for blood-pressure checks because he had not shown a prescription to the officer. In

a supporting brief filed the same day as the complaint and in a later-filed amended

complaint, Munn further alleged that he had requested treatment from Gates and Bass

on May 21 because he was experiencing headaches, dizziness, and cramps, and the

nurse needed to check his blood pressure and see if he needed to take one of his bloodpressure pills. When treatment was denied, he suffered mental anguish, and when he

finally received treatment nine days later, his medication was increased. 

At the beginning of the evidentiary hearing, the district court stated that it read

the complaint as asserting only that Munn did not receive his prescribed bloodpressure checks while in punitive isolation from May 21-30. Munn replied that he

also did not receive his medication while in isolation, and he thought he had raised

such a claim in his complaint. When defense counsel stated that Munn had filed no

grievance about missed medication, Munn said his grievance stated that defendants

had interfered with prescribed treatment. The court thought this grievance statement

referred to blood-pressure checks, and the court ruled that Munn would be limited to

the blood-pressure-checks issue. 

After defense counsel conceded that Munn did not receive any blood-pressure

checks for the nine days he spent in isolation, the court stated that the only issue was

harm, and asked Munn to testify about any injuries from not getting his blood pressure

Appellate Case: 05-1320 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/18/2006 Entry ID: 1998082
-3-

checked. Munn testified that prison medical staff had been working for a year to

control his blood pressure, and he needed regular blood-pressure checks to determine

the type and amount of medication he required. Beginning on May 19, he had a 30-

day prescription for blood-pressure medication and for blood-pressure checks every

Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. On May 21 in isolation, he told Gates that he had

a headache, cramps, a nosebleed, and dizziness; and asked Gates to call Bass and tell

him that Munn needed to go to the infirmary for treatment and medication. On May

30, when released from isolation, his blood pressure was checked at the infirmary and

he resumed his medication. 

In its written order, the district court found the missed-medication claim was

not properly before it; and, absent physical injury, the missed-monitoring claim was

barred by 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e) (no federal civil action may be brought by prisoner for

mental or emotional injury suffered while in custody without prior showing of

physical injury). In an unsuccessful motion to amend, Munn asserted that the only

way for him to receive his blood-pressure medication while in isolation was to be sent

to the infirmary “for treatment,” and that defendants and the district court had

misconstrued his treatment prescription as being for blood-pressure monitoring only.

He submitted medical records he had received after the hearing, including a May 19

treatment order by Alexander that prescribed a blood-pressure medication twice daily

until June 19. 

Because Munn made a jury demand, we review the dismissal de novo. See

Randle v. Parker, 48 F.3d 301, 303 (8th Cir. 1995). We first conclude that Munn

raised a missed-medication claim prior to the evidentiary hearing. Looking solely at

the original complaint and its attachments, we see how the district court believed that

Munn alleged only a missed-monitoring claim: Munn stated in the complaint that

defendants had denied him prescribed “treatment,” and the attached May 19 treatment

order referred only to blood-pressure checks. However, in the supporting brief filed

the same day as the original complaint and in the amended complaint, Munn alleged

Appellate Case: 05-1320 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/18/2006 Entry ID: 1998082
-4-

that he had requested treatment from defendants on May 21 because he was

experiencing high-blood-pressure symptoms, the nurse needed to check his blood

pressure, and he may have needed to take some of his blood-pressure medication.

Looking at all these documents together, we conclude that Munn sufficiently alleged

he was denied his blood-pressure medication for the nine days he spent in isolation,

and that the district court therefore abused its discretion in disallowing testimony at

the evidentiary hearing as to such a claim. See Beach v. Yellow Freight Sys., 312

F.3d 391, 397-98 (8th Cir. 2002) (reviewing for abuse of discretion district court’s

exclusion of testimony). Additionally, we note Munn had grieved a missedmedication claim: his May 21 grievance stated that he did not receive prescribed

“treatment,” which May 19 treatment orders--including the ones submitted after the

evidentiary hearing--show referred to blood-pressure checks and medication. 

As for the missed-monitoring claim, we conclude it does not fail under section

1997e(e) for lack of physical injury. Munn alleged and testified that he experienced

headaches, cramps, nosebleeds, and dizziness while he was denied treatment; section

1997e(e) is merely a limitation on damages, see Davis v. District of Columbia, 158

F.3d 1342, 1346 (D.C. Cir. 1998); and at a minimum, Munn could recover nominal

damages for defendants’ admission that they did not comply with the prescribed

blood-pressure monitoring, see Royal v. Kautzky, 375 F.3d 720, 722-23 (8th Cir.

2004) (§ 1997e(e) does not bar recovery of nominal and punitive damages, or

declaratory and injunctive relief), cert. denied, 125 S. Ct. 2528 (2005). 

Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings not inconsistent

with this opinion on both the missed-medication and missed-monitoring claims. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-1320 Page: 4 Date Filed: 01/18/2006 Entry ID: 1998082