Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-6_05-cv-06034/USCOURTS-arwd-6_05-cv-06034-0/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

HOT SPRINGS DIVISION

PAUL C. WRIGHT PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 05-6034

 

TROY TUCKER, Sheriff;

BRIAN WEINGARNER,

Jailer; and JACKIE NEWBORN,

Jail Administrator DEFENDANTS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before the court for decision is the defendants’ motion for summary judgment motion

(Doc. 23). To assist plaintiff in responding to the summary judgment motion, a questionnaire

was propounded to the plaintiff (Doc. 26). Plaintiff’s response to the questionnaire was filed

as his response to the summary judgment motion (Doc. 27). 

BACKGROUND

Paul C. Wright was booked into the Clark County Detention Center (CCDC) on February

24, 2005. Plaintiff’s Response (Doc. 27) (hereinafter Resp.) at ¶ 1. He was incarcerated because

of pending criminal charges and because his parole had been revoked. Id. at ¶ 2. He remained

incarcerated at the CCDC until April 29, 2005. Id. at ¶ 3. 

To obtain medical care at the CCDC, an inmate had to write out a request that was then

evaluated by Jackie Newborn, the jail administrator. Id. at ¶ 11(C). Inmates were taken to a near

by clinic for treatment. Id. The CCDC had no doctor or nurse at the facility. Id. During

Wright’s incarceration at the CCDC, he filed grievances requesting medical attention. Resp. at

¶ 5. 

Case 6:05-cv-06034-BAB Document 28 Filed 02/20/07 Page 1 of 8 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

March 17, 2005, was a Thursday. March 18, 2005, was a Friday.

1

March 22, 2005, was a Tuesday.

2

-2-

On March 17th or March 18th, Wright requested medical treatment because he had a 1

knot on the back of his head. Id. at ¶ 11(B). Wright stated it hurt so badly he could not sleep or

lay on his head. Id. 

Wright states he informed each of the defendants of the severe pain he was in. Resp. at

¶ 6. Although he complained of pain, Wright states he waited patiently until he was finally taken

to the doctor on March 22, 2005. Id. at ¶ 11(A). When he was taken to the doctor, Dr.

2

Blackmon, Wright maintains he was “misdiagnosed” with a “hair bump” or “in grown hair.”

Id. at ¶ 6, ¶ 11(A) & ¶ 11(D).

Wright was prescribed an antibiotic–a Z-pac. Resp. at ¶ 8 & ¶ 11(A). Wright maintains

the antibiotic didn’t help and his “head continued to swell.” Id. at ¶ 8. Wright did, however,

receive the antibiotic, a Z-pac. Id.

Wright was not prescribed any pain medication even though he told the doctor he was in

severe pain. Resp. at ¶ 11(D). Wright did take over-the-counter pain medication “religiously.”

Id. at ¶ 9. Although he took the over-the-counter medication frequently and most of the time

signed the log sheet indicating he had received it, Wright states the medication did not help with

the pain. Id. Wright indicates there were times he was not allowed to sign the medication log.

Id. He assumes this was because he had exceeded the amount of the over-the-counter medication

that should be taken in a certain time period. Id.

On March 23rd when there was no improvement in his condition, Wright asked to see

Sheriff Tucker. Resp. at ¶ 11(A). However, he was not allowed to see the Sheriff. Id. Wright

Case 6:05-cv-06034-BAB Document 28 Filed 02/20/07 Page 2 of 8 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

March 25, 2005, was a Friday.

3

-3-

then wrote a grievance but received no response. Id. On March 24th, Wright wrote another

grievance but did not receive an answer. Id. On March 25th, Wright spoke with Newborn and 3

asked for medical attention. Id. Wright indicates Newborn stated he should wait until Monday

and they would get him to a doctor then. Id. Wright also indicates Newborn said to have an

inmate squeeze the puss out and Newborn gave him some gloves. Id. 

Wright was asked whether he contended a custom or policy of Clark County resulted in

his being denied adequate medical treatment. Resp. at ¶ 10. He replied: “Yes.” Id. He stated

he was always told by the jailers that they could not do anything without authorization from

Jackie Newborn, the jail administrator, or the Sheriff, Troy Tucker. Id. When Wright talked to

Newborn, he states he was referred to Tucker who Wright was never able to speak to. Id. Wright

believes it was always an issue of the budget and the cost of medical care or of their believe he

was not in pain as he claimed. Id. Wright states anyone could see his head was swollen. Id. 

Wright indicates he was always told Sheriff Tucker would not send you to the doctor or

emergency room. Resp. at ¶ 12. With respect to Jailer Brain Weingarner, on the evening of

March 25th, Wright states he passed out and his cell-mate reported this to Weingarner. Id.

According to Wright, Weingarner told Wright to “get up nothing is wrong with you.” Id. Wright

indicates Weingarner also said Sheriff Tucker said not to call the paramedics because Wright had

just been taken to the doctor. Id. Wright states his family then “called the jail and reported to

the county upon th[eir] arrival I was taken to the hospital.” Id.

With respect to Newborn, Wright indicates he told her daily about his pain and she never

gave him adequate attention and took his pain as a joke. Resp. at ¶ 12. Wright indicates

Case 6:05-cv-06034-BAB Document 28 Filed 02/20/07 Page 3 of 8 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-4-

Newborn always said to wait or to get the inmates to squeeze the puss and he would be okay.

Id. Wright states Newborn had the authority to send him to the doctor or the emergency room

when he told her nothing had changed with his pain and his head was getting bigger. Id. 

Because of the delay in his receiving medical attention, Wright states the hospital had to

cut his head open and it left a “huge scar and a hole.” Resp. at ¶ 13. Wright indicates staph

infection ate the tissue in the back of his head and he was in pain like he had never felt. Id.

Wright indicates he still gets a sharp pain at times and has a huge bump where the hole used to

be. Id. Upon arriving at the Arkansas Department of Correction (ADC), Wright maintains he

was given another antibiotic and informed the Z-pac “was not the right one for staph infections.”

Resp. at ¶ 8. 

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

Case 6:05-cv-06034-BAB Document 28 Filed 02/20/07 Page 4 of 8 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-5-

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

Section 1983 provides a federal cause of action for the deprivation, under color of law,

of a citizen's "rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws" of the

United States. In order to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, plaintiff must allege that each

defendant acted under color of state law and that he or she violated a right secured by the

Constitution. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 108 S. Ct. 2250, 101 L. Ed. 2d 40 (1988); Dunham

v. Wadley, 195 F.3d 1007, 1009 (8th Cir.1999). Mere negligence will not suffice to state a claim

for deprivation of a constitutional right under § 1983. Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 106

S. Ct. 662, 88 L. Ed. 2d 662 (1986); Davidson v. Cannon, 474 U.S. 344, 106 S. Ct. 668, 88 L.

Ed. 2d 677 (1986). 

“The Eighth Amendment prohibits prison officials’ cruel and unusual punishment of

inmates . . . .” Tlamka v. Serrell, 244 F.3d 628, 632 (8th Cir. 2001). See also Butler v. Fletcher,

465 F.3d 340, 344 (8th Cir. 2006)(the Eighth Circuit held that deliberate indifference is the

“appropriate standard of culpability for all claims that prison officials failed to provide pretrial

detainees with adequate food, clothing, shelter, medical care and reasonable safety.”). “This

prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment has been interpreted as obligating prison

officials to provide inmates in their custody with medical care. A prison official violates an

inmate’s right to medical care if his or her conduct amounts to a deliberate indifference to the

prisoner’s serious medical needs.” Plemmons v. Roberts, 439 F.3d 818, 823 (8th Cir.

2006)(internal quotation marks omitted)(citing Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106, 97 S. Ct.

285, 50 L. Ed. 2d 251 (1976)). 

Case 6:05-cv-06034-BAB Document 28 Filed 02/20/07 Page 5 of 8 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-6-

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

harmful to evidence deliberate indifference to serious medical needs.” 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 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).

"[T]he failure to treat a medical condition does not constitute punishment within the

meaning of the Eighth Amendment unless prison officials knew that the condition created an

excessive risk to the inmate's health and then failed to act on that knowledge." Long v. Nix, 86

F.3d 761, 765 (8th Cir. 1996). In Ruark v. Drury, 21 F.3d 213, 216 (8th Cir. 1994), the court

Case 6:05-cv-06034-BAB Document 28 Filed 02/20/07 Page 6 of 8 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-7-

noted that “an intentional delay in obtaining medical care for a prisoner who needs it may”

violate the Eighth Amendment. For delay to violate the Eighth Amendment the Eighth Circuit

has stated:

the information available to the prison official must be such that a reasonable

person would know that the inmate requires medical attention, or the prison

official’s actions (or inaction) must be so dangerous to the health or safety of the

inmate that the official can be presumed to have knowledge of a risk to the

inmate.

Tlamka, 244 F.3d at 633. See also Ruark, 21 F.3d at 216.

We believe there are genuine issues of material fact as to whether the defendants’ delay

in taking Wright to the doctor constituted deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs.

Defendants have only supported their summary judgment with a copy of the complaint and the

addendum to the complaint. The court has not been provided with Wright’s medical records

from the time he was incarcerated at the CCDC or any affidavits or materials stating how medical

requests were evaluated in general or more particularly how it was determined when, and if,

Wright needed to be taken to the doctor.

We certainly cannot say as a matter of law that no genuine issue of material fact exists

as to whether defendants exhibited deliberate indifference to Wright’s serious medical needs with

respect to the period of delay between Wright’s being taken to the doctor on March 22nd and his

return for medical treatment on March 25th. Wright maintains that following his visit to the

doctor on March 22nd his condition worsened, he complained repeatedly of severe pain, his head

was swelling, and the medication was not working. Nothing in the record suggests the

defendants contacted the doctor or other medical personnel and were told Wright could wait until

the following Monday to be seen again. In view of Wright’s continued complaints, we cannot

Case 6:05-cv-06034-BAB Document 28 Filed 02/20/07 Page 7 of 8 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-8-

say as a matter of law that the three-day delay in obtaining treatment for Wright did not constitute

deliberate indifference. 

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated, the defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Doc. 23) will be

denied. A separate order in accordance with this opinion will be entered.

DATED this 20 day of February 2007. th

/s/ Robert T. Dawson 

HON. ROBERT T. DAWSON 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 6:05-cv-06034-BAB Document 28 Filed 02/20/07 Page 8 of 8 PageID #: <pageID>