Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Griggs v. Livermore

United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, Fayetteville Division

January 14, 2015

REGINALD GRIGGS, PLAINTIFF
v.
OFFICER MICHAEL LIVERMORE, Washing County Detention Center, DEFENDANT

Reginald Griggs, Plaintiff, Pro se, Fayetteville, AR.

For Officer Michael Livermore, Defendant: JaNan Arnold Davis, Jason E. Owens, LEAD ATTORNEYS, Rainwater, Holt & Sexton, P.A., Little Rock, AR; Colin P. Wall, Rainwater Holt Sexton, Little Rock, AR.

MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

HON. ERIN L. SETSER, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

This is a civil rights action filed by the Plaintiff, Reginald Griggs, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis .

Plaintiff is currently incarcerated in Washington County Detention Center (WCDC). The events at issue in this case occurred while Plaintiff was in pre-trial status at the WCDC on June 23, 2013. Specifically, Plaintiff maintains that he was forced to take certain medications that he knew were not good for him, and was not allowed to take only some of the medications he was offered.

Defendant has filed a motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 32). On October 23, 2014, a hearing was held to allow the Plaintiff to respond to the summary judgment motion by testifying.

I. Background:

A. Plaintiff's Version:

Plaintiff, a 52 year old inmate at the WCDC, had been prescribed several medications on the date in question, some of which included Amitriptyline, Trazadone, and HCTZ. On the morning of June 23, 2013, when Defendant was making the medicine rounds, he presented Plaintiff with at least 13 pills for him to take. Plaintiff told Defendant that he did not want to take all of the pills, because he knew some of them were not good for him. Plaintiff testified that Lisinopril (a blood pressure medication) caused him to have extreme urination, and that he was presented with two doses of Atenolol (another blood pressure medication). Plaintiff said that he would have taken one of the doses of Atenolol, but not two.

When Plaintiff told Defendant he did not want to take those two medications, Defendant told him that he had cost the jail too much money because he had to go to the hospital for his blood pressure, and that if he did not take all of the medications, he would lock Plaintiff up in the hole. Defendant would not allow Plaintiff to refuse to take some of the medications - he had to take all of them or refuse all of them. Plaintiff testified that he was claustrophobic and did not want to go to the hole, and that Defendant knew it. Another officer, Deputy McNally, approached the two while they were discussing the medications, and wanted to know what the problem was. Plaintiff told him the problem, and Deputy McNally said Defendant could make Plaintiff go to the hole. Plaintiff then took all of the medications, and filed a grievance that same day, complaining that he was not allowed to refuse some of the medication.

Later that evening, Plaintiff's bladder was weak and he urinated on himself because he took the medication that he tried to refuse. He also had blurred vision as a result of taking all of the medicine. As Plaintiff did, in fact, take all of the medication, he was not put in the hole.

At the medicine round offered that evening, and after Plaintiff had filed his grievance, Plaintiff was allowed to refuse to take some of the medications.

B. Defendants' Version:

Defendant submitted a copy of his report dated June 23, 2013, wherein he ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.