NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR P UB LIC AT ION File Na me: 09a0661n.06 No. 08-3427 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT
E ILE E N L. K O S LO S K I, Administratrix for the E state of Daniel Kosloski, Dec ease d, Pla int if f- Ap pe lla nt,
v.
DAN DU NLAP, L AKE COUNT Y, OHI O, ANN TA KACS, CAROL YN B ARBI SH, DR. CARL A B ASTER, and SEVEN UNKNO WN DEFEND ANTS, De fe nd ants -A

pp e lle e s. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEALFROM THE UNI TED STATES DI S TRI CT COURT FOR THE NORTHE RN DI STRI CT OF O H IO

B e fo re : SI L ER, MO OR E, and GR I F F I N, Cir c uit

Judg e s. SILE R, Circ uit Jud ge . Eileen Kosloski appeals the district court’s grant of summar y judgme nt i n favor of Da n Dunlap, Anne Taka cs, Caroly n Ba rbish, Dr. Car la B aster, a nd L ake Co un ty , O h io ( c o ll e c ti v e ly “De fendants ” ) , o nh e r d e c e a s e d s o n ’ s 4 2 U
. S. C. § 1 9 8 3 c la im s . We revie w the district cour

t’s order g rantingsummary

judgme nt de novo. Street v. Correc tions Cor p. of Am. , 102 F.3d 810, 814 ( 6th Cir. 1996). Findingno constitutional v i o l at i o n , we affirm the judgme nt of the district court. A fe dera l civil rights cla im requires ( 1) that the conduct at issue be unde r color of state law and (2) that the conduc t cause a depr ivation of a rig ht s ec u red by the Constitut ion or laws of the United States. 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Defe ndants conc ede that, at all t i m e p er t inent to this sui t, theyNo. 08-3427

Kosloski v. Dunlap, et al.,

- 2 - we re a c tin g un de r c olo r o f s tate law. Ei le e n K os los ki a lle g e s t hat De fe nd ants vio late d th e Ei g hth Amend me nt’ s p r o h ib it io n

a g a in s t c r u e l a nd unusual punishment throug h their deliber ate indiffe renc e to D anie l K os los ki’ s se ri ou s me dic a l ne e ds duri nghis tim e a s a pr iso ne r a

t th e L ake County

Jail
. “[D]eliberate indi ffe renc e to the ser ious medical nee ds of a pr isoner constitutes ‘the
unnece ssary

and wa nton infl i ct i o n of pain’ pr oscribed by the Eig hth Amendment.” Estelle v. Ga mb le , 4 2 9 U. S
. 9 7 , 1 0 4 (1 9 7 6 ) ( ci t i n g Gr e gg v . G e or gia , 42 8 U. S. 15 3, 17 3 ( 19 76 )) . A n E ig hth Am e ndme nt c la im h a s o bje c tiv e and su bje c tiv e co mpo ne nts . T he ob je c tiv e c omp on e nt r e qu ir e s a prisoner to show that his medical nee d was “ sufficie ntly serious.” Com sto c k v . M c Cra ry , 273 F.3d 6 9 3 , 7 0 2 (6 thC i r. 2 0 0 1 ) ( ci t i n g Farmer v. B r en n an , 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994)). The subjective
c omp on e nt r e qu ir e s th e pr iso ne r t o d e mon str a te that the o ff ic ia l be ingsu e d h a d “ a

su ff ic ie ntl y culpable state of mind in denying medical car e.” Blac k mo rev . Ka lam az oo Cou nty , 390 F.3d 890, 895 (6th Cir. 2004). A prison off icial ca nnot be found liable unde r the Eig hth Amendment for deliberate indiffer ence to a prisoner ’s serious medic al nee ds u n less at the time of the c onduct: (1) the offic ial is awar e of f

acts fr om which t h e infere nce c ould be dra wn that a substantial risk of serious har

m exi sts, and (2) the of

ficial a ctually

draw s the infer ence . Farmer , 511 U.S. at 837. Neg lige nce, inc luding medic al m alpra ctice, does not rise to the l evel of a constitutional tort simply beca use the victim is a prisoner
. Es te lle , 4 2 9 U
. S
. a t1 0 6
. W h e nm e d i c a l p r o f e ssi on a ls provide tre atment, albeit ca rele ssly or ineff icac iously , to a prisoner , they have “ not display ed a deliberate indiffer ence to the prisoner’ s needs, but mere ly a degr ee of incompetenc e which does not rise to the leve l of a c onstitut ional violation.” See Comstock , 273 F.3d at 703.No. 08-3427

Kosloski v. Dunlap, et al.,

- 3 - Eileen Kosloski’s cla ims ag ainst Takac s arise out of her son’ s reque st for medica l attention on April 1, 2005. In the written re quest for medical attention, Da niel Kosloski informed Taka cs, a
re gist ered nu rse , that he ha d b loo d in his sto ol a

nd that he ha d “ anta

rt ic e ” [sic ]. T aka c s me t w ith Daniel Kosloski that same d ay . She asce rtained that Daniel Kosloski believed that he had
e nd oc ard iti s. Da

nie l K os los ki e xpla ine d th a t he tho ug ht h e ha d th e inf e c tio n becaus e he and

his g ir lf ri e nd , w ho wa s b e ingtr e a te d f or in fective e nd oc ard iti s, sh are d n e e dle s w hil e inj e c tin g he ro in toge ther, a

nd one of he r doctors ha d tol d him that he should be tested for the infec tion. Daniel Kosloski, however , did not have sy mptoms of endocar ditis, and he indicated that he had ne ver be en dia g no se d o r t

re a te d f or the inf e c tio n. F ind ing Da

nie l Kos los ki’ s outw ard a pp e ara nc e and sk in t o be no rm a l, Tak acs ret urned him to t he ra ng e , w ith out f

ur the r e xami natio n o r r e fe rr a l to the ja il doctor. The meetinglasted appr ox imately two minutes and conclude d with T akac s telling Da niel Kosloski to “quit wasting my time.” Be cause the pa rt i es do not dispute that endoca rditis is an objectively

serious condition, Taka cs ’ s s u

b je c ti v e me n ta l s tate is th e d e te r mi n a ti v e is s u e . T ak a c s d e c id e d n o t t o r e f

e r Daniel Ko slo sk i f

or fu rt he r e xami natio n b e c a

us e sh e tho ug ht h e did

no t ha ve e nd oc ard iti s. She ma de thi s assessment bec ause of

Daniel Kosloski’s la ck of sy mptoms, past diagnosis, or pre vious treatment for e ndocar ditis. Takacs may have be en neg lige nt in failing to c onduct a phy sical examination or
re fe r D anie l K os los ki t o th e ja il d oc tor , b ut n e g lig e nc e is i nsuff ici e nt t o s up po rt

an E ig hth Amendment violation. Fo rd v . Co un ty of

Gran d Trav e rse , 535 F.3d 483, 495 ( 6th Cir. 2008). B e c a us e Taka c s did n ot a

pp re c iate tha

t a su bs tanti a l r isk

of se ri ou s h arm

e xiste d, sh e c ann ot b e he ldNo. 08-3427

Kosloski v. Dunlap, et al.,

- 4 - persona lly

liable, under

the Eig hth Amendment, for failing to diag nose and tre at Danie l Kosloski’s serious medica l needs. See F armer , 511 U.S. at 837. Eileen Kosloski’s cla ims ag ainst Ba rb i s h arise out he r son’s thre e additional re quests for medical attention during his te rm of imprisonment. On April 11, 2005, Daniel Kosloski requested
a dentist a ppointment be cause of a broken tooth. On April 21, 2005, he re quested that he be g iven Mo tr in r a th e r th an T yle n o l f o r h is to o th a c h e , an d , o n M ay 2 4 , 2 0 0 5 , h e c o mp la in e d o f feve r and
vo mit ing . B arb ish , a

c e rt if ie d li c e ns e d p ra c tic a l nu

rs e , r e sp on de d p romp tl y and in a re a so na ble
mann e r t o e a c h o f t

he se re qu e sts fo r m e dic a l atte nti on fr om D anie l K os los ki. Howeve r, B arbish had no r eason to be lieve Da niel Kosloski ha d a serious medica l condition. He did not mention to her the possibility that he had been exposed to endoca rditis. Taka cs did not communicate w ith Bar

bish about her v i s i t wi th Daniel Kosloski, and ther e is no evidenc e that Ba rbish lear ned about Da

niel Kosloski’s heig htened r isk of exposure to endoca rditis from revie wing his medical file. B arbish may have been ne g lige nt in failing to re view Da niel Kosloski’s medical file, but neg lige nce is insuffic ient to sup p ort an Eig hth Amendment violation. Fo rd , 535 F.3d at 495. There fore , she was not deliberately indiffer ent to his serious medical ne eds. See F armer , 511 U.S. at 837. Eileen Kosloski ha s forf

eited her appea l of her § 1983 claims ag ainst Ba ster, the he ad of the medical de partment at the L ake C o u n t y J ail, and Dunlap, the L ake County Sheriff, be cause her ap p ell ate br ief g ives only cursor y treatment of those claims. See U nited States v. Sandridge , 3 85 F .3 d 1 03 2, 10 35 (6 th C ir . 2 00 4) . M or e ov e r, the y are wi tho ut m e ri t. Eil een Ko slo sk i’ s c la ims
a g a ins t B a ste r a

nd Dunla p ar e ba se d on th e ir

re sp e c tiv e su

pe rv iso ry po sit ion s. Ho we ve r, “ [b]e c a us eNo. 08-3427

Kosloski v. Dunlap, et al.,

- 5 - § 1983 li a

b il it y c an n o t b e im

p o s e d un d e r a th e o r y o f r e s p o n d e a t s u

p e r io r , p r o o f

o f persona l involvement is require d for a supervisor to incur persona l liabilit y .” Mi lle r v . Ca lho un Cou nty , 408 F.3d 803, 817 n.3 ( 6th Cir. 2005). Neither B aster nor Dunlap had any level of persona l involvement in r e sp on din g to D anie l K os los ki’ s r e quest s for me dic a l atte nti on

or a c tua l kn ow le dg e of

his heig htened r isk of exposure to endoca rditis. There fore , they cannot be held personally liable, under the Eig hth Amendment, for f ailing to mee t Daniel Kosloski’s serious medic al nee ds. See id
. There is likewise no substance to Eileen Kosloski ’s m unicipal l iability claims ag ainst L ake County , Ohio, which are based on a theory of responde at superior that has bee n square ly reje cted by the Supreme Court. Se e Mo ne ll v . D e p’ t. o f So c . S e rv s. , 436 U.S. 658, 691 (1978). More over, the po lic y Ei le e n K os los ki i de nti fi e d a s the ba sis fo r he r mun ic ipa l lia bil ity c la ims –th e us e of nurs e s to t ri age inmate reque sts for medica l car e–has be en pre viously upheld by

this court in Graham v. County of W

ashtenaw , 358 F.3d 377, 384 (6th Cir. 2004) (findingthat it is not unconstitutional for
mun ic ipa lit ie s and

the ir e mpl oy e e s to re ly on the me dic a l ju dg me nts ma de by me dic a l pr of

e ssi on a ls, including nur ses, re sponsible for prisoner car e). In ad dition, there is no evidenc e that the a lleg ed failure to me et Daniel Kosloski’s me dical needs was any thing other than an isolated incide nt. See City of Can ton v . H

arris , 4 89 U. S. 3 78 , 3 91 (1 98 9) (n oti ngthat th e re c an b e no mun ic ipa l li a bil ity wher e “a n otherwise sound pr og ram ha s occa sionally been ne g lige ntly

admi n i s t ered”). I

ndeed, Ei le e n K os los ki’ s c ouns e l c on c e de d th a t “ ha d th e me dic a l pe rs onnel at the L ake Cou

nty Jail followed [their] own written policies and proce dures [Daniel] Kosloski’s endoca rditis would have been a ppropriate ly

diag nosed and tre ated be fore J une 2, 2005.” AFF I RMED.No. 08-3427

Kosloski v. Dunlap, et al.,

- 6 - KA REN NELSO N MOORE, Circ uit Jud ge, concurring in part and diss enting in part. Be cause I conclude that, viewing the evidenc e in the light most fa vorable to the plaintiff, a trie r of fac t could reas o nably

infer that Defe ndant Taka cs demonstrated deliber ate indiffe renc e to a
su bs tanti a l r isk

to D anie l K os los ki’ s se ri ou s me dic a l ne e ds , I re sp e c tf ull y dis se nt. As the district court a cknowledg ed, ther e wa s a fa ir amou n t o f evidence sug g esting that
so me on e in T aka c s’ s posi tio n wou ld have kn ow n that Kos los ki lik e ly ha d e nd oc ard iti s. F or

on e , in his affidavit, Kosloski ex plains that he told Taka cs that his g irlfriend suf fer ed fr om the disease a

nd that th e y sh are d intr ave no us ne e dle s. Th is a lon e sh ou ld h ave c on c e rn e d T aka c s g ive n h e r f amil iari ty wi th e nd oc ard iti s and

the mea ns by

wh ic h it sp re a ds . B ut e ve n if

Taka c s f a ile d to make thi s
connec tion, Kosloski ex plici t l y t o l dher that a phy sician had a dvised him to ge t tested for
e nd oc ard iti s. Th is, of c ours e , d oe s n ot p ro vid e dir e c t e vid e nc e that T aka c s c on sc iou sly dis re g ard e d th e ri sk that Kosloski had contra cted endoca rditis. B ut plaintiffs assertingEig hth Amendment claims may rely upon “cir cumstantial evidenc e” f rom which the r equisite culpable state of mind can be inferr ed. Com sto c k v . M c Cra ry , 2 7 3 F. 3 d 6 9 3 , 7 0 3 (6 th C i r. 2 0 0 1 ) ( ci t i n g Farmer v . Brennan , 511 U.S. 825, 842 (1994)) , cert. de nied , 5 37 U. S. 8 17 (2 00 2) . In p art ic ula r, “ ‘a fa c tf ind e r m ay

c on c lud e that a prison officia l knew of a substantial risk from the ve ry fac t that the risk was obvious.’” LeMarbe v. W isneski , 2 6 6 F. 3 d 4 2 9 , 4 3 6 (6 thC i r. 2 0 0 1 ) ( qu o t i n g Farmer , 511 U.S. at 842), cert. de nied , 535 U.S. 1056 (2002). Her e, a jury could find that the risk wa s indeed obvious. Afte r all, it is one thing
ne g lig e ntl y to ov e rl oo k a sy mpt om, but it is qu ite ano the r to ig no re a dis e a se th at i s s peci fi c a llyNo. 08-3427

Kosloski v. Dunlap, et al.,

- 7 - identified by

a patient a

nd a pr ev i o u s d o ctor. Unde r such c ircumstance s, it is di fficult for Taka cs plausibly to claim that she did not know that Kosloski might be a ffe cted by the disease
. Simi larly , Kosloski’s a ffidavit indicates that Taka cs ended her interview by telling Kosloski to “quit wasting her tim e.” Record on A ppeal ( “ROA” ) at 209 (K osloski Aff. at 4). Ajury might understanda

bly find such a statement to be quite ca llous. I ndeed, when combined with the fa ct that Taka cs conduc ted nothing more than a “ visual[] observ[ation]” which did not even involve che cking Kosloski’s temperature, ROA at 256 (Taka cs Dep. at 15), a trie r of f act mig ht rea sonably

conclude that T aka c s w a s d e lib e rate ly ind if fe re nt t o a

su bs tanti a l r isk

to K os los ki’ s se ri ou s me dic a l ne e ds
. Th e ma jor ity summa ri ly c on c lud e s, ho we ve r, that Tak a c s hon e stl y “ tho ug ht [K os los ki] d id not have e ndocar ditis . . . because of [hi s] lack of sy mptoms, past diagnosis, or pre vious treatment for e ndocar ditis.” Maj. Op. at 3. B ut a re asonable j u ry m i gh t at t ac h littl e we ight to the f act that Kosloski had not y et bee n diag nosed with or tre ated for endocarditis. After all, the whole point of his inquiry

to Takac s was to deter

mine whether

he had e ndocar ditis and then to obtain treatment for it, a nd for a nurse to re spond with nothing more tha n a cur sory

examination mi g ht very

well be f ound to constitute the kind of deliberate i ndiffer ence to a serious medical need that the Ei g hth Amendment pr oh ibi ts. Of course , the majority may be rig ht that T akac s had only the best intentions, and if they wer e
a c tin g a s th e tr ie r o f f

a c t th e y wo uld be fr e e to r e a c h th is c on c lus ion . B ut t he ma jor ity pr ov ide s li ttl e explanation as to why

a diffe rent infe renc e mig ht not be equ al l y reasonable, a nd Ican f ind none. There fore , Iwould reve rse the district c ourt’s judg ment with respec t to Defe ndant Taka cs and
re mand fo r f ur the r p ro c e e din g s. Ire sp e c tf ull y dis se nt.