The Honorable Georg e C ara m Steeh, Unit ed S tates Dist rict J udg e for the Easter n District * of Michig an, sitting by

desig nation. -1- NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 08a0784n.06 F iled: Dec em ber 24, 2008 No. 06-4136 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT
RICARD O V. DODSON, P laintif f-App ellant,
v. REGINA LD A. WILKINSON, etal., De fend ant s- App e lle e s. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) O N A P P E A L F R O M T H E U N I T ED STA TES DI STR IC T C OU RT F OR THE SOU THER

N D ISTRIC T OF OHI O

Before: G IBBO NS and COOK, Cir cuit Judges; and STE EH, District Judge. * GEORG E CARAM STE EH, District Judge. I n a c omp la int

fi le d a g a ins t va

ri ou s O hio State Correc tions Officials, prisoner Ricardo Dodson a lleg ed that dela y s in testing a

nd treatment for Hepatitis C violated his Fourth, F ifth, Six th, and Four teenth Amendm en t ri ghts and constituted deliberate indiffe re n ce to his need for medical c are in violation of the Eighth Ame ndment of the Constit ution. The district court g rante d summary judgme nt in favor of

the def endants. B eca

use we find no constitutional violations , we a ffirm the district c ourt’s dec ision. I. Ricardo Dodson, a

n inmate at the R i ch land Corre ctional I nstitut ion (“RCI ”) in Mansf ield, Ohio, filed a pr o se complaint on October 17, 2003 ag ainst Ohio Depa rtment of Reha

bilitation and-2-

Correc tions (“ODRC”) D irec tor Reg inald Wil kinson, RCI Hea lth Care Administrator B rian Cain, and “John Doe” de fe n d an t s , alleg ing Wilkinson adopted an OD RC poli cy on November

9, 2001, reg ardinginmate testing and tre atment for H epatitis C. The poli cy require s testing ne w inmates, but not inmates such as Dodson who were incarce rate d befor e Nove mber 9, 2001. Dodson a lleg edly was
no t te ste d f

or He patit is C w he n h e wa s f ir st i nc arc e ra

te d at th e OD RC’ s Warr e n Co rr e c tio na l F a c ili ty in 1991. Whi le an inmate at RCI , Dodson was ref err ed for Hepatitis C te sting on May 10, 2003, by a prison mental he althcar e doctor and tested positive for the virus on J une 26, 2003. An RCItreating ph y sic ian, Dr . Wil liams, a lle g e dly tol d D od so n th at, p ur su ant to the OD RC p oli c y , D od so n w ou ld
no t r e c e ive tr e a tme nt f

or the vir us un til his liv e r sh ow e d sig ns of c ir rh os is o r f

a ilure . D r. Willi a ms alleg edly examined Dodson ag ain on September 26, 2003, and ordered additional testing. Dodson
c l a i m s t h a t h e s u f

f e r s f r o m H e p a t i t i s C s y

mp t o m s o f “ i n t e s t i n a l an d a b d o m i n a l p a i n , h e a da c he s,
nausea , decr ease d appetite, muscle and joi nt ache s, weakness, fatigue , high c holesterol, depr ession, [an d] f lu- lik e sy mpt oms ,” a ll a lle g e dly

wi tho ut r e c e ivi ngme dic a l tr e a tme nt. Wil kinson and Cain wer e alleg ed to be liable unde r 42 U.S.C. § 1983, in bot h their individual
a nd of fi c i a l c a p a c i t i e s , f

o r v i o l a t i n g D o d s o n ’ s F o u rt h , F i f t h , S i xth , E i g h t h , an d

F o u rt e e n th Amendment rig hts by

intentionally

delay ing a nd denying D odson and ot her ODRC prison inm ates immediate Hepa

titis C testing, tre atment, and e du cation. Dodson alleg ed additional cla ims of conspirac y , medical malpr actice , neg lige nce, a nd g ross neg lige nce a g ainst Wi lkinson, Cain, and the “John Doe” def

endants. Dodson a l l ege d separ ately as “f uture injuries” his “risk for de veloping cirrhosis, liver f

ailure, liver

canc er, a nd the reduc ed likelihood of responding to treatment, ther eby leadingto death.” D odson' s demand for relief included “immediate first class medical tre atment,”-3-

injunctive relief

requiringthe ODRC to test and treat all prison inmates fo r He p at i t is C, and
c omp e ns a tor

y and punit ive dama g e s. On Se pte mbe r 7 , 2 00 4, and

ov e r D od so n’ s o bje c tio ns , the dis tr ic t court a c c e pte d a ma g istrate ju d ge’ s Report and Rec ommendation and g rante d Wil kinson’s and Cain’s motion for summary judgme nt. I t de termined that these defe ndants could not be held liable under § 1983 beca use they
wer e not per sonally

invol ved in Dodson’s testing or medica l treatment. The district court fur ther found that, eve n if they

wer e involved, Dodson’s Eig hth Amendment c la im o f d e libe rate indiffer ence to s er i o u s medical ne eds fa iled beca use it was beyond dispute that Dodson has bee n rec eiving Hepatitis C testing and tr eatment since he wa s first diag nosed with the virus on June 26, 2003. The district court also conc luded that Wilki nson and C ain could not be held leg ally responsible for the November

9, 2001 Hepatitis C policy beca use it was beyond dispute that ODRC Medical Dire ctor Dr. B ruce Martin, not Wil kinson or Cain, had de veloped a nd implemented the policy . The district court g rante d Dodson' s motion for leave to add Dr. Ma rtin as a “ J ohn Doe” defe ndant to the extent Dodson alleg ed an Eig hth Amendment claim that he would not have contrac ted t he He patitis C vi rus but for the OD RC poli cy . The district cour t deni ed , wi t h o ut prejudice , Dodson’s motion for appointment of a me dical expert pending a dete rmination of Dodson’s fina l course of treatment. The dis tr ic t c ourt a lso g ra

nte d D od so n’ s mo tio n to c omp e l di sc los ur e of a ll o f h is m e nta l he a lthre c or ds , but de n ie d

D o d s o n ’ s r e qu e s t f

o r d is c o v e r y s an c ti o n s . D o d s o n ’ s s tate la w c la im s o f

me d ical malprac tice, neg lige nce, a nd g ross neg lige nce w ere dismiss ed, without prejudice , afte r the district court de clined to exercise supple mental jurisdiction over the c laims. Do ds on mov e d f or a pp oin tme nt o f co un se l on Apr il 5, 200 5, fo r the purp os e of a ssi sti nghim at a r equeste d hear ing. T he motion and re quest for he aringwer e denie d on Marc h 28, 2006.-4-

On Aug ust 8, 2006, the district court ac cepte d a sec ond Report and Rec ommendation, and g rante d summary

judgme nt in favor of

the re maining de fenda

nt, Dr. Mar

tin. The district court
overr uled Dodson’s objection that the mag istrate judg e misapplied Nap ie r v . M ad iso n Co un ty , 238 F.3d 739 (6th Cir. 2001), finding t hat Dodson failed to introduce suff icient medica l rec ords to show that he suff

ere d a re quisite “d et ri mental ef fec t” re sulting fr om not being te sted or tre ated f or He patit is C fr om 199 9, wh e n Dr . Mar tin be c a me the OD RC Med ic a l Dir e c tor , unti l the He patit is C policy was implemented by

Dr. Martin on November

9, 2001. The district cour t also determined that Do ds on fa ile d to pr of

fe r s uf fi c ie nt e vid e nc e to s ho w that he su ff e re d a “ de tr ime nta l e ff

e c t” a s a re su lt of any delay in testing or treatment under t he 2001 Hepa titis C policy , g iven Dr. Martin’s attestations that Dodson was d i agn o s ed wi th Stage 1 Hepatitis C and is unlikely to prog ress to a ne ed for tr e a tme nt i n le ss t

ha n 1 0 to 20 y e ars . II. Dodson chal le n g e s th e d is mi s s a l o f h is c la im s o ns u mm ar

y ju d g me n t. T h is c o u rt r e v ie ws de novo a dis trict court' s g rant of summary judgme nt. Mi na de o v . I

CI Pa int s , 3 98 F .3 d 7 51 , 7 56 (6 th Cir. 2005). Summary

judgme nt is appropr i at e if no g enuine issue of materia l fac t exi sts on the
rec ord and the movant is e ntitled to judgme nt a s a matter of law. Fe d. R. Civ. P. 56( c). I n deciding a motion for summary

judgme nt, the ev i d en ce an d all rea sonable infe renc es ar e viewe d in a light most favora

ble to the nonmoving pa

rty
. Re dd ing v . S t. E war d , 241 F.3d 530, 532 ( 6 t h C i r. 2001) (c i t i n g Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp. , 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986)). A. Absent a reque st f

or cer tification of this matter as a class action lawsuit u n d er R u l e 2 3, D o d s o n ’ s c l a i m s c h a l l e n g i n g t h e O D R C H e p a t i t i s C t e s t i n g an d t r e a t m e n t p o l i c y ar e l i m i te d to-5-

alleg ed violations of his own constitutional rights. Ne wso me v . No rri s , 888 F.2d 371, 381 (6th Cir. 1989). Dodson “la cks standing t o assert the constitutional rights of other prisoners.” Id

. Pr o se prisoners g ener ally

may not bring class ac tion lawsuits concer ning pr ison c o n d i t i ons. Dean v

. Blan c ha rd , 8 6 5 F. 2 d

2 5 7 (6 t h C i r. 1 9 8 8 ) (T ab l e) (c i t i n g Oxe ndine v. W illiams , 509 F.2d 1405, 1407 (4th Cir. 1975)). Dodson lac ks standing to se ek injunctive re lief on behalf of all ODRC inmates, and there fore his claims and ar g uments on appea l are limit ed to alleg ed viol at i o n s of his own
c on sti tut ion a l r ig hts

. The Eig hth A mendment is D odson’s proper source for relief

. The Eigh t h Amendment protec ts prison inmates a g ainst deliberate indiffer ence to the ir serious medical ne eds, re g ardle ss of h o w th a t d e li b e r a te in d if f e r e n c e is evidence d. Es te llev . G am ble , 429 U.S. 97, 104-105 (1976) (noting that the “de liberate indiffer ence ” standa rd of the Eig hth Amendment applies “whe ther the indiffer ence is manifested by p ri s o n d o ct o rs in their re sponse to the prisoner ’s nee ds, or by

. . . in te n ti o n a ll y d e n y in g o r d e la y in g a c c e s s to me d ic a l c ar e o r in te n ti o n a ll y in te r f e r in g with the treatment once prescr ibed.”)

. “Where a particular Ame ndment ‘provides a n expli cit text ual source of constitutional protection’ ag ainst a particula r sort of g overnme nt behavior, ‘ that Amendment, not t h e m o r e g e n e r a l i z e d

n o t i o no f

s u b s t an t i v e d

u e p r o c e s s , m u s tb e t h e g u i d e f o r an a l y z i n g t h e se claims.’” Albright v. Oliver , 5 1 0 U. S
. 2 6 6 , 2 7 3 (1 9 9 4 ) ( qu o t i n g Graham v. Connor , 490 U.S. 386, 395 (1989)) . The Eig hth Amendment is the p ri m ary source of substantive protec tion to a prison inmate alleg ing the denial of me dical ca re. W hit le yv . A lbe rs , 475 U.S. 312, 319, 327 (1986) ( citing Es te lle , 4 29 U. S. at 10 4) ; see als o W alk e r v . No rri

s , 917 F.2d 1449, 1455 (6th Cir. 1990) (re cog nizi ng that the re asoning of Graham a pp lie s “ in t

he c on te xt of

c la ims ari sin g un de r the e ig hth
a me ndme nt. ” ). Do ds on ’s inv oc a tio n o f F ourt h A me nd me nt, F if th A me ndme nt, Sixth A me ndme nt,-6-

and F ourt e e nth

Am e ndmen t rig hts to H e patit is C te sti ngand tr e a tme nt a s a

state pr iso ne r i s conclusory an d u n av ai l i ng . See Lill ard v. Shelby County Bd. of Ed. , 76 F.3d 716, 726 ( 6th Cir. 1996). B. To su c c e e d o n h is E ig hth Am e ndme nt c la im, Do ds on mus t b e ab le to p ro ve “ ‘d e lib e rate indiffer ence ’ to his ‘ser ious’ medical ne eds.” W ilson v. Seiter , 501 U.S. 294, 297 (1991) ( quoting Es te lle , 429 U.S. at 106). An Eig hth Amendment claim of de nial of medica l car e has both objec tive
and su bje c tiv e c omp on e nts , th e objec ti ve c omp on e nt r e qu ir ingpr oo f o f a “ su ff ic ie ntl y se ri ou s” medical need, and the s ubjective c omponent requiringproof of “a suf ficiently culpable state of mind in denying me dical ca

re.” Blac k

mo re v . Ka lam az oo Count y , 390 F.3d 890, 895 ( 6th Cir. 2004) (q u o t i n g Farmer v . Brennan , 5 11 U. S. 8 25 , 8 34 (1 99 4) ; Es te lle , 429 U. S
. at 104; and Brown v. Ba rg e ry , 207 F.3d 863, 867 (6th Cir. 2000)). “[A] m edica l need is objec tively serious if it is ‘one that ha s b e e n d ia g no se d b y a ph y sic ian a s ma

nd a tin g tr e a tme nt or

one that is so obvious that even a lay person would e asily

rec og nize the nece ssity

for a doctor' s attention.’” Blac k mo re , 390 F.3d at 8 9 7 (q u o t i n g Gaudreault v. Mun. of Salem , 923 F.2d 203, 208 (1st Cir. 1990) (empha sis in original))

. Withre g ard

to t he su bje c tiv e c omp on e nt: [T] he off icial must both be awa

re of fac ts from which the infe renc e could be draw n that a substantial risk of serious harm exists , and he must also dra w the infe renc e. Knowledg e of the asser

ted serious ne eds or of circ umstances c lear ly indicating the exis tence of such ne eds is essential to a f inding of deliberate indiffer ence . Blac k mo re , 3 9 0 F. 3 d

at 8 9 6 (q u o t i n g Farmer , 511 U.S. at 837; and Horn v. Madison County Fiscal Cou rt , 22 F.3d 653, 660 ( 6th Cir. 1994)) (interna l quotations omi tted).-7-

An Eig hth Amendment claim may be pre mised on deliberate indiffer ence to expos ing a n inmate to a

n unrea sonable risk of serious harm in the futur e. Helling v. Mc Kinney , 509 U.S. 25, 36 (1993). A c laim of deliberate indiffer ence to f uture serious harm re quires proof of both the objec tive and subjec tive elements of a n Eig hth Amendment claim. Id

. at 35. An alleg ed dela y in rec eiving treatment require s an ex amination of t he effec ts of the delay

. Napier , 23 8 F .3 d a t 74 2. “ [A]n i nmate who complains that dela

y in medical tre atment rose to a constit utional violation mus t place ve rifying medical e vidence in the rec ord to establish the detrimenta l effe ct of the delay in me dical tre atment to succe ed.” Id

. (q u o t i n g Hi ll v. DeKalb Re g’ l Youth De t. C

tr. , 40 F.3d 1176, 1188 ( 11th Cir. 1994)). Contrary

to Dod son’s alleg ations, the rec ord demonstrates that Dodson has re ceive d continuous testing and treatment since being diag nosed wit h Hepatitis C on J une 26, 2003. Dodson
re c e ive d te sti ngand

a c hr on ic liv e r dis e a se ba se lin e e va luatio n in De c e mbe r 20 03 , w hic h le a d to his
vacc ination ag ainst Hepatitis A and Hepatitis B, more testing, a nd his enrollment at the Chronic Car e Clini c. A liver

biopsy was performe d at t he Ohio State University Hospital in Febr

uary 2004, which,
acc ording to Dr. Mar

tin, “indicate d that [Dodson] has a H istologic Gr ade 1 of 4, which mea

ns that he has mi n im a l i n f

la mm a to r y a c ti v it y an d n o h e p a to c y

te n e c r o s is ( o r

n o li v e r c e ll d e a th ) , a nd Histologic Stag e 1 of 4, w h i ch m eans that he has minimal fibrosis and no bridg ing f ibrosis.” Dr. Mart in a lso stated in his Marc h 1 6, 20 04 a ff ida vit that: “ [e]v e n th ou g h h is d ise a se is e xpe c te d to pr og re ss o ve r t

he ne xt 20 t o 3 0 y e ars it m ay no t pr og re ss at all” ; the te sti ng “ re su lts and [Do ds on ' s] pr og no sis ind ic a te tha

t h e s h o u l d b e c on tin uo us ly mon ito re d a

nd re -e va luate d b y

a re pe a t li ve r b iop sy
ever y three to five y ear s”; and “ [b] ased on the results of the biopsy , it is unnecessar y for [Dodson] to rec eive a

ny kind of medication at this t ime.” Dr . Robert Kirkpatrick, Chief of the L iver Clinic at-8-

the Oh io S ta te Un ive rs ity Me dic a l Ce nte r, wr ote in an Au gus t 19 , 2 00 4 me mor and um t o D r. Mart in Akusoba of the Correc tions Medical Center: A q uic k n ote on thi s patie nt [Ric ard o Do ds on ] w ho wa s se e n in t he L ive r C lin ic in consultation on Aug ust 18, 2004. He has chronic hepatitis C a nd has b een inc arc e rate d f

or a numbe r o f y e ars . N o hist or y of de pr e ssi on . N o h ist or

y of dr ug s, c oc a ine , tr ans fu sio n. He is a sy mpt omatic bu t oc c a sio na l na us e a . No fe ve r o r c hil ls, nausea or vo m i t i n g. No hi story of depr ession. No cha

ng e [sic] of obviously

of g e t t i n g an yo n e p r e g n an t
. P a s tm e d i c a l h i s t o r y - A s t h m a . P a s ts u r g i c a l h i s t o r y - None. Aller g ies - non e. M edications - Azmacort. Social history - Incar cer ated. Family h i story

- Unre marka

ble. No liver disea se. Review of sy stems [ sic, sy mptoms? ] i s neg ative. . . . . [Dodson] has a hig h viral load. He is ge noty pe I -A. B iops i es showed no inflam at ion and no fibrosis. At this point, t he risks and indications for treatment we re dis c us se d w iththe patie nt. Ithi nk the y [sic ] ar e tw o v e ry

re a so na ble op tio ns , one is treatment and one is re peat biopsy in t h re e y ear s to see if ther e is any pr og re ssi on

of his dis e a se . I n disc us sio n with the patie nt, he ind ic a te s th a t he wa nts to go a head w ith treatment. I

think this is not unreasona ble and Iwould start him on treatment on Pega sy s 180 mcg per w eek a nd ribavirin 1200 m g per da y . He ne eds labs che cked e very

wee k for the f

irst month and ever

y month afte r t hat. He can be f o l l o w e d u p i nt h e m e d i c a l c l i n i c . H i s c h an c e o f r e s p o n s e i s a

b o u t2 0

- 2 5 % , b u tm ay, ho we ve r, a s h e un de rs tand s, be de c re a se d s in ce he is on the Azm a c or

t w hic h is a steroid. On th is r e c o r d , D o d s o n c an n o t p r o v e th a t th e O D RC , thr o u g h D r . M arti n , w a s d e li b e r a te ly and culpably indiffer ent t o a need for testing a nd treatment after

Dodson was f

irst objectively

diag nosed with the Hepatitis C virus on J une 26, 2003. See Blac k mo re , 390 F.3d at 895, 897. Dodson has failed to pr offe r verify ing medical evidenc e of a “detr imental eff

ect” cause d by a dela y in treatment that exposes Dodson to an unreasonable risk of serious harm in t he future

. See Helling , 5 09 U. S. at 25 ; Napier , 238 F.3d at 742. After D odson’s nee d for medic al testing and treatment beca

me obj ectively serious on J une 26, 2003, Dodson was evaluated by Dr. Willi ams on Se pte mbe r 2 6, 20 03 , r e fe rr e d f or furth er te sti ng , a

nd ult imate ly

wa s te ste d a

nd e va luate d in Dec ember

2003. After

testing, D odson was re fer red to the Chronic Care Cli nic, was g iven a liver-9-

biopsy in Febr uary 2004, was diag nosed as having Stag e 1 He p at i t i s C , an d there afte r re ceive d a
course of trea

tment notwith s t anding Dr. Mar tin’s opinion that it was unne cessa ry to administer medication to Dodson as of Marc h 16, 2004. Dodson’s di sag ree ment with the testing a nd treatment he ha s r e c e ive d s inc e be ingdi agnos ed wi th He patit is C do e s n ot r ise to t he le ve l of

an E ig hth Amendment violation. Es te lle , 4 29 U. S. at 10 7; W estlake v . Lucas , 537 F.2d 857, 860 n.5 ( 6th Cir. 19 76 ) ( re c og nizi ngtha

t “ [w]he re a

pr iso ne r h a s r e c e ive d s ome me dic a l a tte nti on and the dis pu te is over the adequa cy

of the tre atment, fe dera l courts ar e g ener ally re l u ct ant t o second guess medica l judgme nts and to constitutionaliz e cla ims which sound in state tort law.”)

. Dodson’s prof

fer ed medica l rec ords dating back to 1991 do not support a f in d i n g of a “detr imental eff

ect” aris i ng from a de lay

in testing him for H epatitis C until May 10, 2003. The medical rec ords do not indicate that Dodson was suffe ring from an objec tively serious medica l need from 1991 until he was te sted for the Hepatitis C virus in May 2003. See Blac k

mo re , 390 F.3d at 89 7. F ro m 19 9 1 t h r o u g h M ay 2 0 0 3 , D o d s o nc o mp l a i n e d o f a n u mb e r o f m e d i c a l c o n d i t i o n s, including low blood sug ar, stomac h pains, asthma, ulcer s, irritable bowel sy ndrome, allerg ies, and dizz y spells. On each occasion, Dodson rece ived timely medical tre atment. To the e x tent any one of these c onditions could have bee n viewed by a phy sician as a

sy mptom of Hepatitis C, the failure to make the diag nosis sooner than June 26, 2003, would at best amount to medical malpr actice , not deliberate i ndiffer ence actionable under the Eig hth Amendment. Es te lle , 4 29 U. S. at 10 7; W estlake , 537 F. 2 d a t 8 6 0 n . 5
. G iv e nD r . K ir k p a tr ic k ’ s u n c o n te s te d

im p r e s s io nth a t D o d s o nw as “asy mptomatic [ with ] o cc as i o n al nause a” a s of Aug ust 19, 2004, reasona ble jurors c ould not conclude that Dodson was suffering from an objectively serious m edica l need prior t o testing in May 2003. Consequently , rea sonable juror s could not conclude that, prior to May 2003, ODRC doctorsTo the e xten t Do ds on a dv anc e s an e qu a l pr ote c tio n argume nt un der t he Fo urte e nth 1 Amendment, Dodson ha s failed to alleg e or ide ntify his membership in a protec ted class. As rec og nized by a dis trict court a ddressing virtually the same c laims alleg ed by Dodson, " prisoners a

re not a ‘prote cted c lass’ for equal pr otection purposes.” Dotson v. W i lkinson , 477 F. Supp. 2d 838, 8 5 1 (N

. D. Oh i o M ar ch 1 2 , 2 0 0 7 ) ( ci t i n g Hampton v. Hobbs , 106 F.3d 1281, 1286 ( 6th Cir. 1997)). -10- we re de lib e ra

te ly ind if fe re nt t o unr e a so na

ble ri sk s o f futur e ha

rm to Do ds on c a

us e d b y He patit is C

. See Blac k mo re , 3 90 F .3 d at 89 7; Helling , 5 09 U. S. at 36 ; Napier , 238 F.3d at 742. Dodson’s alleg ation that the Novembe r 9, 2001 He patitis C pol icy implemented by

Dr. Martin provided that only new pr ison inmates would be tested for Hepatitis C is belied by

the re cord. Under t h e No v em b er 2001 policy , inmate elig ibilit y for He patitis C t esting includes scr eening asy mptomatic inmates having one or more risk fac tors, such as IV or inter-na sal drug use, a blood transfusion before J une 1992, a his tory of HI V infec tion or having a par tner with the HIV infec tion, a history of hemodialy sis, or a history of hemophilia. I nmates are also elig ible for He patitis C t esting
un de r t he 20 01 po lic y ba se d on dia g no sti c s, a s w a s th e c a se wi th D od so n. Th e po lic y a lso e xpre ssl y provides: “This protoc ol is not i ntended to be a substitut e for profe ssional judgme nt by the attending ph y s i c i an [. ]” A s a

p p l i e d t o D o d s o n , t h e N o v e mb e r 9 , 2 0 0 1 H e p a t i t i s C p o l i c y c an n o t r e a so nably be c on str ue d a s d e lib e rate ly

ind if fe re nt t o d ia g no sin g and tr e a tin g Dod so n f

or He patit is C

. Construing the November 2001 Hepatitis C policy as a whole, and as applied to D odson, that part of the protoc ol providing f or the scr eeningof ele vated a lanine aminotra nsfer ase le vels in new inmates does not evince a culpa ble state of mind of deliberate indiffer ence toward D odson’s
o b j ec t i v e medica l condition and rec eipt of treatment as a re sident prisoner since 1991. S ee 1 Blac k mo re , 390 F.3d at 895. Dodson’s ar g ument that the district court g rante d summary judgme nt without ruling on the constitutionalit y

of the He patitis C pol icy is without merit. The district court rule d that the policy-11-

imp le me nte d b y

Dr . M art in, and

a s a pp lie d to Do ds on , d id n ot c on sti tut e de lib e rate ind if fe re nc e to Dodson’s nee d for medic al ca re. D odson’s asser

tion that the policy

“denie s n ec es s ar y

life saving treatment” is baseless. Dodson’ s assertion that the district cour t improperly

dismiss ed Wilkins on from this lawsuit on finding that Wi lkinson did not treat him, when Dods o n wa s i n stead suing Wilk ins on

in h is of fi c ia l c a pa c ity fo r a do pti ngthe He patit is C po lic y , f a ils on thi s c ourt ' s de novo de te rm inatio n th a t th e po lic y a s a pp lie d to Do ds on

do e s n ot v iol a te the Ei g hth Am e ndme nt. III
. Dodson also cha lleng es the district cour t’s denial of his motions for the a ppointment of counsel, for appointment of an expert witness, and for discovery sanctions. The denial of a motion fo r ap p o i n t m ent of counsel is reviewe d for a n abuse of

discretion. Lavado v. Keohane , 9 9 2 F
. 2d 601, 605 (6th Cir. 1993). Dis t ri ct courts also e njoy discretion in dec iding whe ther to appoint an
ex p ert witness, Fugitt v. Jones , 5 4 9 F
. 2 d 1 0 0 1 , 1 0 0 6 ( 5 th Ci r . 1 9 7 7 ) ; F e d

. R. E v id

. 7 0 6 ( a ) , and whether to gr ant discover

y sanctions. Lavado , 9 22 F .2 d at 60 4; Ventura v. The Cincinnati Enquirer , 396 F.3d 784, 789 ( 6th Cir. 2005). An ab u s e o f discre tion ex ists if a decision is based on a n
err oneous conc lusion of law or c lear ly err oneous finding s of fa ct, or is clea rly unrea s o nable or arbitra ry . Y oun v. Track, I

nc. , 324 F.3d 409, 420 ( 6th Cir. 2003). Th e dis tr ic t c ourt

re a so na bly de nie d D od so n’ s mo tio n for a pp oin tme nt o f c ouns e l to a ssi st him at a hearing afte r deny ing Dodson’s reque st for the hear ing. T he cour t notes that Dodson has be e n mo re tha

n a ble in a dv anc inghis c la ims in ple a din g s and br ie fs . T he dis tr ic t c ourt re a so na bly d en i edDo d s o n ’s m o t i o nfo r ap p o i n t m en to f a m ed i ca l ex p er t , wi t h o u tp re j u d i ce , p en d i n g a deter mination of Dodson’s final c ourse of treatment. The distr i ct co u rt rea sonably conclude d on September 7, 2004 that Dodson was rece iving ong oing me dical testing and tre atment. The district-12-

c ou rt reas on abl y

den ied san cti on s af

ter com pel li ng th e di scl os ure o f Do ds on ’s m ent al h eal th reco rd s. There was no a

buse of discr etion. I V. We a ff ir m th e jud g me nt o f t

he dis tr ic t c ourt
.