Opinion ID: 2745400
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: merits of easley’s claims

Text: For Easley to secure redress under § 1983, he must demonstrate that the defendants, acting under color of state law, committed acts that deprived him of [I]f a prisoner brings a civil action or files an appeal in forma pauperis, the prisoner shall be required to pay the full amount of a filing fee. The court shall assess and, when funds exist, collect, as a partial payment of any court fees required by law, an initial partial filing fee of 20 percent of the greater of-- (A) the average monthly deposits to the prisoner's account; or (B) the average monthly balance in the prisoner's account for the 6-month period immediately preceding the filing of the complaint or notice of appeal. 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915(b)(1). 16 Case: 13-14257 Date Filed: 10/24/2014 Page: 17 of 21 some right, privilege, or immunity protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States. 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Eighth Amendment forbids “cruel and unusual punishments,” U.S. Const. amend. VIII, and prohibits “deliberate indifference to serious medical needs of prisoners.” Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104, 97 S. Ct. 285, 291 (1976). To prevail on a deliberate indifference claim, Easley must show: “(1) a serious medical need; (2) the defendants' deliberate indifference to that need; and (3) causation between that indifference and the plaintiff's injury.” Mann v. Taser Int'l, Inc., 588 F.3d 1291, 1306–07 (11th Cir. 2009). To establish deliberate indifference, Easley must prove “(1) subjective knowledge of a risk of serious harm; (2) disregard of that risk; (3) by conduct that is more than [gross] negligence.” Townsend v. Jefferson Cnty., 601 F.3d 1152, 1158 (11th Cir. 2010) (alteration in original). The defendants must have been “aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exist[ed]” and then actually draw that inference. Farrow v. West, 320 F.3d 1235, 1245 (11th Cir. 2003) (quotation omitted). Delay in treatment may, under certain circumstances, constitute deliberate indifference. See McElligott v. Foley, 182 F.3d 1248, 1255 (11th Cir. 1999). And “prison officials may violate the Eighth Amendment's commands by failing to treat an inmate's pain.” Id. at 1257. But “a simple difference in medical opinion 17 Case: 13-14257 Date Filed: 10/24/2014 Page: 18 of 21 between the prison's medical staff and the inmate as to the latter's diagnosis or course of treatment” does not support a claim of deliberate indifference. Harris v. Thigpen, 941 F.2d 1495, 1505 (11th Cir. 1991); see also Waldrop v. Evans, 871 F.2d 1030, 1033 (11th Cir. 1989). Nor do matters of medical judgment. Estelle, 429 U.S. at 107, 97 S. Ct. at 292–93. Deliberate indifference is not established where an inmate received care but desired different modes of treatment. Hamm v. Dekalb County, 774 F.2d 1567, 1575 (11th Cir. 1985). “Medical treatment violates the eighth amendment only when it is so grossly incompetent, inadequate, or excessive as to shock the conscience or to be intolerable to fundamental fairness.” Harris, 941 F.2d at 1505 (quotation omitted). Mere incidents of negligence or malpractice do not rise to the level of constitutional violations; rather, care must be “minimally adequate.” Id. at 1504. And “an inmate who complains that delay in medical treatment rose to a constitutional violation must place verifying medical evidence in the record to establish the detrimental effect of delay in medical treatment to succeed.” Hill v. Dekalb Reg'l Youth Det. Ctr., 40 F.3d 1176, 1188 (11th Cir. 1994), overruled in part on other grounds by Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730, 122 S. Ct. 2508 (2002).
Easley’s evidence does create factual issues about whether he actually received epidural injections for his back pain, but his evidence does not create a 18 Case: 13-14257 Date Filed: 10/24/2014 Page: 19 of 21 factual issue as to deliberate indifference to his multiple medical needs that would preclude summary judgment. We explain why. The undisputed evidence shows that, throughout his time at DCI, Easley received continuous and extensive medication and medical treatment. The DCI Healthcare Providers employed a variety of approaches to ensure that Easley’s diabetes and hypertension remained under control and that Easley’s back pain was effectively managed. They regularly adjusted his treatment to compensate for the unavailability (or, in the case of surgery, Easley’s refusal) of other treatment options. Certain treatment options desired by Easley were never within the authority of the DCI Healthcare Providers at the facility, but rather subject to authorization by Utilization Management in Tallahassee or limited by Department of Corrections policies. Other treatment options, like Easley’s orthotic shoes, were made available initially, but not renewed on Easley’s demand. Even if the unavailability of new shoes annually were imputed entirely to the defendants, it would be, at most, negligence rather than deliberate indifference. At the heart of this complaint is Easley’s access to prescription pain medication, the narcotic Ultram. The availability of Ultram cuts across Easley’s claims against the DCI Healthcare Providers and the DCI Officers. Given the evidence of the standard medical dosing for this narcotic, the heightened concern about “cheeking” for safety in the prison environment, and the multiple medicines 19 Case: 13-14257 Date Filed: 10/24/2014 Page: 20 of 21 Easley received, the steps taken to dispense Easley’s Ultram simply do not rise to the level of deliberate indifference on the part of the DCI Healthcare Providers. While Easley strongly disagrees with his Healthcare Providers as to his treatment, this does not entitle him to relief under § 1983. See Harris, 941 F.2d at 1505; Hamm, 774 F.2d at 1575. Finally, there is no evidence that the DCI Officers, who allegedly denied Easley access to the medical unit, had any awareness of a risk of serious harm to Easley if they did not let him pass at a particular time to obtain Ultram. Rather, the evidence shows that the DCI Officers, like the DCI Healthcare Providers, were constrained by institutional controls and did not bend those controls in response to Easley’s demands for pain medication on his own terms and schedule.
As with deliberate indifference, Easley’s retaliation claim must show that the defendants deprived Easley of some constitutional right. 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He claims that defendants placed him in administrative confinement, transferred him from DCI, and took away his “gain time” because he filed grievances and that defendants’ alleged retaliatory conduct violated his right to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment and his right to freedom of expression under the First Amendment. However, there is no evidence connecting Easley’s grievance to his administrative confinement, transfer, or loss of gain time. 20 Case: 13-14257 Date Filed: 10/24/2014 Page: 21 of 21 Rather, the evidence establishes that Easley was placed in administrative confinement because all of the prisoners present in Section I on the day of the assault on the officer were placed in administrative confinement. Easley does not dispute that he was in Section I on the day of the assault. All of those inmates (whose whereabouts at the time of the attack could not be confirmed) were transferred from DCI. And Easley accrued no gain time for November 2011 because of an unrelated disciplinary report. Therefore, we need not address the requirements for his retaliation claim because those claims fail in any event.