Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-2_06-cv-02143/USCOURTS-arwd-2_06-cv-02143-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-1-

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

FORT SMITH DIVISION

THOMAS LEE STONE PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 06-2143

 

SHERIFF MIKE ALLEN; 

and CHARLES WALL DEFENDANTS

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

The plaintiff filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He proceeds pro

se and in forma pauperis.

Plaintiff is currently incarcerated in the Arkansas Department of Correction. The events

at issue in this lawsuit occurred while the plaintiff was incarcerated at the Crawford County

Detention Center. Specifically, plaintiff contends he was denied adequate medical care.

Defendants filed a summary judgment motion (Doc. 20). To assist plaintiff in responding

to the motion, a questionnaire was propounded (Doc. 24). 

Plaintiff filed a timely response to the questionnaire (Doc. 25). The summary judgment

motion is before the undersigned for issuance of this report and recommendation. 

Background

Stone was arrested and booked into the Crawford County Detention Center (CCDC) on

June 27, 2006. Plaintiff’s Response (hereinafter Resp.)(Doc. 25) at ¶ 1. Stone indicates he

didn’t know when he got locked up but was told three days later when he woke up. Id. 

Case 2:06-cv-02143-JLH Document 26 Filed 08/22/07 Page 1 of 11 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

Stone was asked whether RSD stood for Reflex Sympathetic Dystrophy or something else. He responded that he 1

could not recall. Resp. at 15(B).

-2-

Stone was being held for trial on pending criminal charges. Resp. at ¶ 2. He was

convicted on June 29, 2006, and sentenced to four life sentences and five twenty year terms. Id.

at ¶ 3.

During Stone’s intake, the AHEC Clinic was contacted and Dr. Siddiqui’s nurse was

spoken to regarding Stone’s medication. Defts’ Ex. B. Detention center personnel were told that

Stone was to receive the following medication: Lipitor 1 pill a day in the a.m.; Plavix 1 pill a

day in the a.m.; Nexium 1 pill a day in the a.m.; St. Joseph’s Aspirin 1 pill a day in the a.m.;

Cozaar 1 pill a day in the a.m.; and Combivent 1 time daily in the a.m. Defts’ Ex. D at page 1.

Stone’s medication cards were filled out. Defts’ Ex. B. Stone’s Mother was contacted

and according to notations on Stone’s intake papers she indicated she should be called when

Stone needed medication refills. Id.

Stone contends he was also supposed to receive other medication. Resp. at ¶ 5. He

indicates he had his Mother bring his medications for him. Id. When he ran out of medication,

Stone states he was told that he had to call his Mother that detention center personnel were not

going to call her. Resp. at ¶ 7. 

On July 9, 2006, Stone was seen by Nurse Charles Wall. Defts’ Ex. D at page 1; Defts’

Ex. F at 2. According to Wall, Stone asked for opiate medication, Xanax, and muscle relaxers.

Id. Stone stated he ran out of medications due to his doctors terminating their relationships with

him for inappropriate use. Id. Stone stated he had a history of cardiac problems, stroke, RSD,1

Case 2:06-cv-02143-JLH Document 26 Filed 08/22/07 Page 2 of 11 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-3-

and stomach bumps. Id. Wall noted Stone stated a doppler of his leg was negative. Id. Wall

noted Stone was in no acute distress. Id. Wall ordered a forty-eight hour activity log. Id.

According to Stone, he told Wall in was in a lot of pain. Resp. at ¶ 8. Stone asserts Wall

indicated he would only give him Ibuprofen. Id. Stone told Wall he needed to see a doctor not

just a nurse and Wall refused. Id. Stone maintains the officer saw him in pain and crying. Id.

On July 17th, Stone was seen by Wall complaining of pain and anxiety. Defts’ Ex. D at

page 1; Defts’ Ex. F at 3. Wall’s notes indicate Stone reported he had ran out of pain medication

and benzodiazepines prior to his arrest. Id. Stone complained of generalized pain “post-RSDCVA.” Id. Stone stated he needed muscle relaxers and sleeping medications. Id. He claimed

his doctor was new and would not see him due to the fact he was in jail. Id. Stone said his

previous doctor had fired him. Id. 

Wall noted Stone admitted he had a low cognitive level. Defts’ Ex. D at page 1; Defts’

Ex. F at 3. He also noted Stone appeared to be older than forty-five. Id. Wall ordered a fortyeight hour activity log. Id.

According to Stone, he told Wall that he couldn’t see his new doctor because he could

not pay. Resp. at ¶ 9(A). Stone indicated he told Wall the doctor would see him if she got paid.

Id. 

On July 18th, Stone submitted a grievance. Resp. at ¶ 10. He stated he had filled out

three medical requests and had not seen a doctor yet. Id. He indicated he was tired of hurting

and “other stuff.” Id. He stated it took two hours to get a band-aid the other night. Id. He also

said the nurse told him the same old story when he saw him. Id.

Case 2:06-cv-02143-JLH Document 26 Filed 08/22/07 Page 3 of 11 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-4-

The written response to the grievance states that if Stone did not like what the nurse told

him that he could have his family make an appointment with his doctor at his expense and they

would transport him. Defts’ Ex. C at page 1. However, Stone contends he was told he would

be taken to the doctor in thirty-five days. Resp. at ¶ 11. 

On July 24th, Stone requested pain medication. Resp. at ¶ 12. According to Wall’s

notes, Stone denied any acute pain or distress and merely asked for Tylenol daily. Defts’ Ex. D

at page 1; Defts’ Ex. F at 4. Wall okayed Stone receiving two tablets of Tylenol daily, but only

as requested. Id. 

Stone maintains he never denied he was in pain and distress. Resp. at ¶ 13. Instead, he

states Wall would only give him Tylenol. Id. Furthermore, he states he never got the Tylenol

on a daily basis. Id. Stone indicates some of the officers saw him crying with pain a lot and said

they wished they could do something for him. Id. 

On July 31st, according to Wall’s notes, Stone complained that his whole body was

aching. Defts’ Ex. D at page 1; Defts’ Ex. F at 5. Stone was seen by Wall. Id. According to

Wall, Stone requested Tylenol twice daily for pain and reported the Tylenol was effective. Id.

Wall okayed Stone receiving two tablets of Tylenol twice daily as needed for aches. Id.

Stone asserts that he never received Tylenol twice daily for pain. Resp. at ¶14(B). He

also denies reporting that the Tylenol was effective. Id. In fact, he states he told Wall the

Tylenol was not effective. Id. In response, Stone indicates Wall said that was all Stone was

going to get. Id. 

Case 2:06-cv-02143-JLH Document 26 Filed 08/22/07 Page 4 of 11 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-5-

On August 1st, Stone submitted a grievance. Resp. at ¶15(A). He stated he had asked

several times to see a doctor to no avail. Id. He stated he was not getting his proper medication

that he had been taking on the streets. Id. He stated he suffered a stroke in the past and had RSD

because of the stroke. Id. He also indicated he suffered a nervous breakdown, had migraine

headaches, was supposed to be on a breathing machine, was having blurred vision, and was

having problems sleeping at night. Id. Although he had spoken to the nurse, he stated it did no

good. Id. In response, Stone was given a medical request form and told it would be looked into.

Id. at 15(C).

 On August 7th, Stone was seen by Wall because of complaints of numbness. Resp. at

16(A). Stone complained of chronic numbness to the right side that came and went. Defts’ Ex.

D at page 2; Defts’ Ex. F at 6. Wall noted Stone’s patellar reflexes were intact, his motor skills

were intact, and his “neuros unchanged.” Id. Wall ordered a twenty-four hour log of Stone’s

activities be kept. Id. 

On August 14th, Stone submitted a grievance stating he had been told that after 35 days

he would be taken to see a doctor. Resp. at ¶ 17(A). He stated he needed to see a doctor for his

health problem as soon as possible. Id. In response, Stone was told his family could set him up

an appointment and pre-pay it with his personal physician. Id. at ¶ 17(B). 

Stone asserts he was told the defendants were not going to pay for him to see a doctor or

pay for his medicine. Resp. at ¶ 17(B). Stone states defendants knew he could not pay for his

own medical care. Id.

Case 2:06-cv-02143-JLH Document 26 Filed 08/22/07 Page 5 of 11 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-6-

On August 14th, Stone was seen by Wall for complaints of body aches. Resp. at ¶ 18(A).

Stone told Wall the Tylenol was not satisfactory and he asked for a change in medication. Id.

at ¶ 18(B). Wall noted that Stone’s gait was not good and his range of motion was not good. 

Id. He noted Stone did not have a rash on his buttocks as claimed. Id. Wall prescribed

Naproxen. Defts’ Ex. D at page 2; Defts’ Ex. F at ¶ 7.

Stone maintains he did have a rash. Resp. at ¶ 18(B). He does not recall if he received

the Naproxen. Id. at ¶ 18(D).

Stone was asked to describe in detail how Wall exhibited deliberate indifference to his

serious medical needs. Stone replied that Wall said he did not like him and was not going to help

him. Resp. at ¶ 19. According to Stone, Wall stated he was not going to recommend that Stone

see a doctor and was not going to give Stone any medication other than Tylenol or Ibuprofen.

Id. When Stone would explain his medical problems, he asserts Wall would merely respond:

“Oh, well.” Id. 

Stone never spoke directly to, or communicated directly with, Sheriff Mike Allen

regarding his medical needs. Resp. at ¶ 20. Stone asserts he tried to get one of the officers to

tell the sheriff he wanted to see him but it never happened. Id. If Stone indicated he never spoke

to, or communicated with the sheriff, he was asked to describe in detail how he believed Sheriff

Allen violated his federal constitutional rights. Stone did not reply. Resp. at page 16. Stone

does however state that the head jailer told him that the sheriff knew about Stone’s problems.

Id. at page 17.

Case 2:06-cv-02143-JLH Document 26 Filed 08/22/07 Page 6 of 11 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-7-

Summary Judgment Standard

Summary judgment is appropriate if, after viewing the facts and all reasonable inferences

in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio

Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587, 106 S. Ct. 1348, 89 L. Ed. 2d 538 (1986), the record "show[s] that

there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a

judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). "Once a party moving for summary

judgment has made a sufficient showing, the burden rests with the non-moving party to set forth

specific facts, by affidavit or other evidence, showing that a genuine issue of material fact

exists." National Bank of Commerce v. Dow Chemical Co., 165 F.3d 602, 607 (8th Cir. 1999).

The non-moving party "must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical

doubt as to the material facts." Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 586. "They must show there is sufficient

evidence to support a jury verdict in their favor." National Bank, 165 F.3d at 607 (citing

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249, 106 S. Ct. 2505, 91 L. Ed. 2d 202 (1986)).

"A case founded on speculation or suspicion is insufficient to survive a motion for summary

judgment." Id. (citing Metge v. Baehler, 762 F.2d 621, 625 (8th Cir. 1985)).

Discussion

Defendants have now moved for summary judgment. They contend there is no evidence

Stone was denied any necessary medical treatment. With respect to Sheriff Allen, defendants

contend there is no evidence he played any role in determining what type of medical treatment

should be given to Stone. They contend there is simply no basis on which the sheriff can be held

liable.

Case 2:06-cv-02143-JLH Document 26 Filed 08/22/07 Page 7 of 11 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-8-

“[W]hen the State takes a person into its custody and holds him there against his will, the

Constitution imposes upon it a corresponding duty to assume some responsibility for his safety

and general well-being.” County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833, 118 S. Ct. 1708, 1719,

140 L. Ed. 2d 1043 (1998)(citation omitted). “Deliberate indifference to an inmate’s serious

medical needs violates the Eighth Amendment as applied to the States by the Fourteenth

Amendment.” Hartsfield v. Colburn, 491 F.3d 394, 396 (8th Cir. 2007). In this circuit it is now

settled law that deliberate indifference is the appropriate standard of culpability for all claims that

detention center officials have denied inmates, whether in pretrial or convicted status, adequate

medical care. See Butler v. Fletcher, 465 F.3d 340, 344 (8th Cir. 2006).

“In order to state a cognizable claim, a prisoner must allege acts or omissions sufficiently

harmful to evidence deliberate indifference to serious medical needs.” Estelle v. Gamble, 429

U.S. 97, 106, 97 S. Ct. 285, 50 L. Ed. 2d 251 (1976). The deliberate indifference standard

includes "both an objective and a subjective component: 'The [plaintiff] must demonstrate (1)

that [he] suffered [from] objectively serious medical needs and (2) that the prison officials

actually knew of but deliberately disregarded those needs.'" Jolly v. Knudsen, 205 F.3d 1094,

1096 (8th Cir. 2000)(quoting Dulany v. Carnahan, 132 F.3d 1234, 1239 (8th Cir. 1997)).

Additionally, "'[t]he prisoner must show more than negligence, more even than gross negligence,

and mere disagreement with treatment decisions does not rise to the level of a constitutional

violation.'" Jolly, 205 F.3d at 1096 (quoting Estate of Rosenberg v. Crandell, 56 F.3d 35, 37 (8th

Cir.1995)). See also Gregoire v. Class, 236 F.3d 413, 417 (8th Cir. 2000)("To establish a

Case 2:06-cv-02143-JLH Document 26 Filed 08/22/07 Page 8 of 11 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-9-

constitutional violation, it is not enough that a reasonable official should have known of the risk,

a plaintiff must establish that the official in question did in fact know of the risk.").

"Because society does not expect that prisoners will have unqualified access to health

care, deliberate indifference to medical needs amounts to an Eighth Amendment violation only

if those needs are 'serious.'" Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 9, 112 S. Ct. 995, 1000, 117 L.

Ed. 2d 156 (1992). "A medical need is serious if it is obvious to the layperson or supported by

medical evidence." Moore v. Jackson, 123 F.3d 1082, 1086 (8th Cir. 1997) (per curiam)

(internal quotation and citation omitted).

In this case, we believe there are genuine issues of fact as to whether Wall exhibited

deliberate indifference to Stone’s serious medical needs. The summary judgment record

indicates that when Stone was booked in it was reported that he was on a variety of medications

including Lipitor, Plavix, Nexium, St. Joseph’s Aspirin, Cozaar, and Combivent. Defts’ Ex. D

at page 1. Stone indicates he did not receive this medication and/or ran out of the medication

and the detention center would not supply the medication despite the fact Stone was without

funds to obtain the necessary medication. 

Wall’s notes also indicate that on several occasions he prescribed Tylenol or Ibuprofen

for Stone on a daily basis. However, Stone denies he received the Tylenol or Ibuprofen on this

basis. On another occasion Wall prescribed Naproxen. There is nothing in the summary

judgment record to indicate when medication was dispensed to Stone.

Stone also made multiple requests to be medically evaluated and asked to be seen by a

doctor. Although he was seen by Wall on a number occasions, there is no indication Wall even

Case 2:06-cv-02143-JLH Document 26 Filed 08/22/07 Page 9 of 11 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-10-

considered referring him to a doctor for evaluation. Furthermore, Stone was told if he was not

satisfied with the treatment he received from Wall he could have his family set up an

appointment with a private physician and pay for it and detention center personnel would

transport Stone to the appointment. Thus, it appears Wall effectively blocked Stone’s access to

further medical treatment unless Stone had private funds to arrange other treatment himself. 

Additionally, while Wall indicates in his notes that he ordered an activity log on three

separate occasions, the activity logs are not in the summary judgment record nor is there any

indication in Wall’s notes that he reviewed the logs. In short, there is nothing to suggest Wall

actually made a determination if medical treatment was necessary based on Stone’s level of

activity. 

With respect to Sheriff Allen, there is no evidence this defendant was personally involved

in making any decisions regarding Stone’s medical care or treatment. In fact, Stone concedes

he was not. Resp. at ¶ 20. Keeper v. King, 130 F.3d 1309, 1314 (8th Cir. 1997)(no evidence

that the defendants were doctors or were personally involved in making medical decisions about

treatment); Mark v. Nix, 983 F.2d 138, 139-40 (8th Cir. 1993)(section 1983 liability requires

some personal involvement or responsibility). 

Conclusion

For the reasons stated, I recommend that the defendants’ motion forsummary judgment

(Doc. 20) be granted in part and denied in part. Specifically, I recommend that the motion be

granted with respect to Sheriff Mike Allen and all claims against him be dismissed. I

recommend the motion be denied with respect to plaintiff’s claims against Charles Wall.

Case 2:06-cv-02143-JLH Document 26 Filed 08/22/07 Page 10 of 11 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-11-

The parties have ten days from receipt of the report and recommendation in which

to file written objections pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The failure to file timely

objections may result in waiver of the right to appeal questions of fact. The parties are

reminded that objections must be both timely and specific to trigger de novo review by the

district court.

DATED this 22nd day of August 2007.

/s/ J. Marschewski 

HON. JAMES R. MARSCHEWSKI 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-02143-JLH Document 26 Filed 08/22/07 Page 11 of 11 PageID #: <pageID>