NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR P UB LIC AT ION File Na me: 10a0276n.06 No. 09-5983 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT
BILL Y J OSEP H F RE NC H, P laintif f-App ellant,
v. DA VI ESS CO UN TY , K EN TU CK

Y; DA VI D OSB ORNE, Ind ividu ally, and in h is o f f icial c apa c it y a s t he Da vie ss C ount y J ail e r ; J OHN AN D J A N E D OE S, N OS . 1 , 2 , A N D 3, Ind ividu ally and in their off icial capacity as off icer s and em ployees of the Davie ss County De te n ti o n Ce n te r; CA RO L B YR D, A RN P; WILLIAM SCOT CHAP MAN, M D, Defendan ts-Appellees. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON AP P EAL FROM THE U NI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT FOR THE WES TERN DI STRI CT OF KENTUCKY

BEFORE: MERRITT, COLE, an d COOK, Circ uit Jud ges MERRITT, Circuit Judge. This is a prison medical malpra ctice c ase in whic h the prisoner , Billy Fr enc h , cl aim s under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 that the def endants violated the Eig hth Amendment Cruel and Unusua l Punishment standard; namely , that the def endants we re “ deliberately indiffer ent to his se r io u s me d ic a l n e e d s ” b y p u r p o s e ly d is r e g ar d in g a

kn o w nr is k

o f h ar m wh il e h e was incar cer ated a

t the Daviess County

Detention Center
. S

e e E s t e l l e v . G am ble , 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976)( “deliber ate indiffe renc e to serious medic al nee ds of prisoner s constitutes t he ‘unne cessa ry and wa nton infliction of pain’”) for the sta ndard of car e re quired for this Constituti onal tort. MoreNo. 09-5983

French v . Daviess County, Kentuck y, et al.

-2- sp e c if ic a lly , h e c la ims tha

t th e de fe nd ants , a ll s ta ff of the de te nti on

c e nte r, w ere d e lib e rate ly ind if fe re nt b y pla c inghim

on a Va lium de tox ific a tio n p ro toc ol i ns te a d o f p ro vid inghim wi th h is presc ription Xanax and by denying him pr escr iption L orce t pills for chronic back pa in. We affirm the District Court’s g rant of summar y judgme nt which we r eview de novo
. See H amby v . Neel , 368 F.3d 549, 556 (6th Cir. 2004). Takingthe mater ial fac ts in the prisoner’s f avor, the primary

issues
are (1) whe ther F renc h even ha d a serious medical need for the L orce t prescr iption, and (2) whe ther the sub s t i t u t i on of the Va lium detox ification protocol f or the Xa nax prescription amounted to a

“ wa nto n in fl ic tio n o f p a in. ” Af te r c are fu lly

re vie wi ngthe e nti re re c or d, we fi nd that F re nc h’ s E ig hth Amendment rig hts were not violated. The Crue l and Unusual Punishment Clause of the Eig hth Amendment gua ra ntees fe dera l inm a te s th e ri g ht t o a de qu a te me dic a l c are , and th e Four te e nth Am e ndme nt e xten ds thi s r ig ht t o inmates incar cer ated by

the states. Johnson v. Karnes , 3 98 F .3 d 8 68 , 8 73 (6 th C ir
. 20 05 ). L ike a ll intentional torts, a claim for pr ison medical malpra ct i ce h as t wo distinct elements: injury to the prisoner’ s objective intere st – in this case , his “ser ious medical needs” – a nd the subjective intent of jail offic ials, defined in this ca se as the “wa nton infliction of pain.” To satisfy the subjective intent element, we have said that a prisone r in Fr ench’ s situation mus t alleg e fa cts that show that the state ac tor “subjec tively

perc eived f

acts fr om which to inf

er substantial r isk to the prisoner, that he did in fact dra

w t he infe renc e, and that he then disreg arde d the risk.” Com sto c k v . M c Cra ry , 273 F.3d 693, 703 ( 6th Cir. 2001). F r e n c h d i d n o t h a v e a

s e r i o u s m e d i c a l n e e d

f o r n ar c o t i c p a i nm e d i c a t i o n ; an d , c o n s e qu e n t l y,
we ne e d n ot d isc us s w he the r the de nia l of L or c e t w a s a

“ wa nto n in fl ic tio n o f p a in. ” At no tim e didNo. 09-5983

French v . Daviess County, Kentuck y, et al.

-3- a phy sician “ma

ndate” narc otic p a in

me d ic a ti o n , such as L orce t, for F renc h’s treatment, and Fr ench’ s need for L orce t was not obvious to jail officia ls. Whil e Frenc h had a pr escr iption for L orce t at the time of his i n ca rc er at ion, when jail nurses c ontacted F renc h’s primary phy sician to confir

m the presc ription, the doctor’s of fice only informed the nur ses as to F renc h’s blood thinning medica tion. Furth e r , th e e me r g e n c y

r o o m d o c to r

w h o tr e a te d

F r e n c h f o r a ll e g e d s e iz u r e s d id

n o t p r e s c r ibe
n ar c o t i c p a i nm e d i c a t i o nf o r F r e n c h , d e s p i t e s t a t i n g t h a t h e w o u l d h a v e i f m e d i c a l l y n e c e s s ar

y. L ikewise, Dr . Allen, a phy sician at the psychiatric cente r F renc h was late r t ra n s fer red to, did not presc ribe na

rcotic pa in medication, thoug h he stated that he would have if medica lly nece ssary . As to the o b v io u s n e s s o f

th e n e e d

f o r L o r c e t, F r e n c h n e v e r

c o mp le te d

a me d ic a l r e qu e s t f

o rm complaining of back pain. (District Ct. R. 110, Ex hibit 8.) He did not provide ja il officials at the tim e of his inc arc e ratio n wi th a pr e sc ri pti on or any oth e r ve ri fy ing do c ume nts to su

pp or t hi s c la im that he nee ded or ha d a prescription for narcotic pain medication, and he did not alleg e on the intake form that he was experiencing back pain. (District C t. R. 84, Ex hibit 10.) Fr ench has failed to show that he had a

serious medica l need f

or nar cotic pain medicat i o n at t h e ti me of his May 2007 incar cer ation; and, there fore , jail officials did not deliberately disreg ard a

known risk. Wit h reg ard to F renc h’s claim for Xanax , Fr ench ma

y have ha d a serious medical ne ed for Xa na x, or so me thi ng lik e it, bu t ja il of fi c ia ls did no t wa

nto nly inf lic t pa in on F re nc h b y

pla c inghim on a Va lium detox ification protocol to we an him off of Xanax . Xa n ax i s a hig hly addictive medication, which c an cau s e s er i o u s wi t h dra wa l s y mp t o m s l i k e s ei z u re s an d

d el i ri u m i f d i s co n t i nu ed abruptly
. French v . Daviess County, Ky. , N o . 4 : 0 7 C V
- 1 0 5
- M , 2 0 0 9 W L 1 7 6 6 9 2 8 , a t * 3 ( W
. D
. K y. J une 23, 2009). F renc h alleg es that the de tox i fi ca t i o n p rot ocol ca used him to have no fe wer thanNo. 09-5983

French v . Daviess County, Kentuck y, et al.

-4- seven se izures, although the nature , duration, or e ffe ct of the se izures is not allege d. (F renc h Br . at 7). Courts have f

ound withdrawa l sy

mptoms t o qualify

as a se rious medical ne ed. See, e .g. , Mayo v. County of Albany , No. 09-1745-c v, 2009 WL 4854022, at *2 (2d Cir. Dec . 17, 2009) (he roin and
a lc oh ol w ith dr awa l) ; Sy lv este r v . Ci ty of N e war k , 120 F. App’ x 419, 423 (3d Cir. 2005) (a cute dr ug wi thd ra wa l) ; Fo e lk

e r v . O uta

ga mi e Cou nty , 394 F.3d 510, 513 ( 7th Cir. 2005) (metha d o ne withdrawa l). Consequently , we will assume that F renc h had a se rious medical c ondition arising out of his appar ently

strong addiction to Xanax . De sp ite Fren ch’s ser iou s me dic a l ne e d f or Xa na x, ja il o ff

ic ia ls d id n ot h a ve a

su ff ic ie ntl y
c ulp a ble state of

min d w he n de c idi ngto p la c e him on a de toxif ic a tio n p ro toc ol. F re nc h’ s e xpe rt s have stated that removing him f rom Xanax “cold turkey” could have ser ious consequenc es, but no

“ c old tur ke y ” a c tio n w a s ta

ke n h ere. (D ist

ri c t Ct. R. 2 5, Exhi bit

4. ) I ns te a d, Va lium w a s u se d to g radua lly wea n Fr ench f

rom Xanax . Valium and Xanax are both benzodiazepines. (Chapman B r.
a t 7. ) C ourt s h a ve fo un d Xana x de toxif ic a tio n pro toc ols , usin g su c h s ub sti tut e s, to b e c on sti tut ion a l. See Chatham v . Adcoc k , 334 F . App ’x 281, 28 8- 89 (1 1th Cir . 2 00 9) ; Bu rd e ttev . B utte Cou nty , 121 Fe d. App’x 701, 702 (9th Cir. 2005) (prison doctor’s decision to taper an inmate of

f of Xa nax does
no t qu a lif y a s d e lib e rate ind if

feren c e to a

se ri ou s me dic a l ne e d) ; see also Thomas v. W ebb , 3 9 F. App’x 255, 256 (6th Ci r. 2002) ( finding that jail official’ s ref usal to provide Xa

nax was not deliberately

indiffer ent when inmate had history of substance abuse)
. Fur ther, Dr
. Troost, the eme rg ency room doctor who tr eate d Fr ench f or his seizures, stated that Valium is the equivalent of X anax and that the jail’s detoxificat i o n prog ram should have
re me die d a

ny wi thd ra wa l sy mpt oms . ( Tr oo st D e p. a t 20 ); se e als o B ur de tte , 1 21 F . App ’x at 70 2 ( 9thNo. 09-5983

French v . Daviess County, Kentuck y, et al.

-5- Cir. 2005) (noting that simil ar tapering -off prog ram pre sented only a slig ht statisti cal r isk of serious side eff ects). Where the question is one of administering a highly addictive dr ug on a continuing basis in the prison setting, the prison staff should have some discretion; and we do not thi nk that the Valium substitut e meets the standard of an “unnec essar y and wanton infliction of p ai n ” under Es te llev . G am ble . “Where a prisoner has re ceive d some medica l attention and the dispute is over the ade quacy

of the tr eatment, feder al cour ts are g ener ally

reluc tant to second guess medica l judgme nts an d to constituti onalize claims that sound in state tort law.” Graham ex rel. Estate of Graham v. County of W

ashtenaw , 358 F.3d 377, 385 ( 6th Cir. 2004). I n ad d i t i o n to claiming that jail officials we re de liberate ly indiffer ent in their direc t car e, Fr ench has also stated a claim ag ainst them in the ir supervisory individual c apac ities f or t h e “ n ona rc oti c s” and “ no -X ana x” p oli c ie s th a t th e y a lle g e dly a do pte d. At

le a st o ne low e r c ourt

ha s h e ld that summary

judgme nt for a jail was inappropriate when t he jail utiliz ed a written, blanket policy forbidding presc ribed na

rcotics, Estate of Clut ters v. Sex ton , No.1:05cv223, 2007 WL 3244437 at *10 (S.D. Ohio Nov. 2, 2007). But it is undisputed that here there is no written policy forbidding the dis pe ns ingof

na rc oti c pa in m e dic a tio n. F re nc h a c kn ow le dg e s th a t th e ja il d isp e ns e d n arc oti c p a i nm e d i c a t i o nt o i n m a t e s o na tl e a s tt w o o c c a s i o n s , w h i c h b e l i e s h i s a s s e rt i o no f a b l an k e tp o l i c y. (F renc h Br
. at 4) I n sum, the rec ord indicate s that Fre nch wa s denied his pain medication based on
a re asoned, individualized medical de termination. Fr ench a ls o a ll e g e s th e e xis te n c e o f a “ n o X an a x” p o li c y a t th e ja il
. E v e n if s u c h a policy exis t s , Fr en ch h as fa iled to show that such a policy was unc onstitut ional as applied to him. The
emer g ency

room doctor who tr eate d Fr ench f ollowing his seizures stated that Fre nch’s medic alNo. 09-5983

French v . Daviess County, Kentuck y, et al.

-6- re c or ds ba c k to 20 05 su pp or ted the inf

e re nc e of a “ ve ry a bu siv e re latio ns hip ” wi th d ru g s, specific ally , benzodiazepines (e.g ., Xanax ). While under other circ umstances a

p ri s o n er mig ht establish that this Valium detox ification protocol is unconstitutional, the fac ts of this case do not support such a c laim beca use t he protocol as applied to Fr ench – g iven hi s history of drug a buse – did not give r ise to a rise to a “wa nton infliction of pain.” The materia l fac ts indicate that the doc tors
and pr iso n s ta ff we re a tte mpt ing to a c t in the be st int e re sts of the pr iso ne r and did no t di sr e g ard

his
w e l l

- b e i n g o r

m a k e an y s i g n i f

i c an tm i s t a k e b y d i s r e g ar d i n g a kn o w nr i s k

o f i n j u r y. Finally , Fr ench bring s a § 1983 claim aga inst Daviess Count y and aga inst Osborne, B y rd and Cha pma n in the ir of fi c ial c a pa c iti e s. Th e c la ims a g a ins t O sb or ne , B y rd and Cha pma n in the ir officia l capa cities are equivalent to claims ag ainst Daviess County itself. Matthews v. Jone

s , 35 F.3d 1046, 1049 (6th Cir. 1994). This Court must deter mine under § 1983 “(1) whether plaintiff’s har

m
was c aused by

a constitutional violation, and (2) if so, whether the city is responsible for that violation.” Colli ns v. City of Harker He ights, T ex. , 5 03 U. S. 1 15 , 1 20 (1 99 2) . B e c a us e F re nc h d id not suffer a constitutional violation, the County cannot be found l iable under § 1983. Fur

ther, ther e is n o e vid e nc e that th e County wa s the mov ingfo rc e be hin d th e a lle g e d p oli c ie s o r d e c isi on s o f i ts medical e mploy ees. I n conclusion, jail offic ials were not able to obtain re liable information that F renc h neede d
narc otic pain medication or Xana x . Offic ials instead made rea soned, i ndividualiz ed dete rminations as to Fr ench’ s car e, such a s placinghim on a detoxi ficatio n p ro t ocol and tra nsporting him to the hospital. Consequently , jail officials we re not deliberately indiffer ent to F renc h’s serious medic al needs.No. 09-5983

French v . Daviess County, Kentuck y, et al.

-7- Acc ording ly , the judg ment of the District Court is aff irmed.