United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, Texarkana Division
WILLIAM A. BRADFORD, JR. PLAINTIFF
SERGEANT SUSAN HANSON DEFENDANT
O. Hickey United States District Judge
a civil rights action filed pro se by Plaintiff
William A. Bradford, Jr., under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Currently before the court is a Motion for Summary Judgment
filed by Defendant Susan Hanson. (ECF No. 27). Plaintiff has
filed a response. (ECF No. 35). The Court finds this matter
ripe for consideration.
is currently incarcerated in the Arkansas Department of
Correction (“ADC”) - North Central Unit, in
Calico Rock, Arkansas. This case arises from incidents that
occurred while Plaintiff was held at the Hempstead County
Detention Center (“HCDC”) in Hope, Arkansas.
in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, the relevant facts
are as follows. Plaintiff was booked into the HCDC on
February 17, 2017, where he remained until he was released to
the ADC on April 11, 2017. (ECF No. 29-1, p. 2). During this
time, Defendant Hanson worked for the HCDC as a
jailer. Defendant Hanson's duties as a jailer
included monitoring inmates who took insulin. Any HCDC inmate
who needed to monitor their blood sugar would be brought to
the intake area, where they were allowed to take a blood
sugar reading and then administer their insulin if the inmate
deemed it necessary. (ECF No. 29-2, p. 2). Each time an
inmate checked their blood sugar level, the name of the
inmate, the jailer monitoring the process, the inmate's
blood sugar level, and amount of insulin taken, if any, was
recorded in a “Blood Sugar Log.” Id.
Friday, March 17, 2017, Plaintiff went to take his insulin
shot and discovered his glass vial of insulin was broken. He
informed Defendant Hanson of this and, in an effort to
preserve what little insulin remained in the bottle,
Defendant Hanson drew insulin from the broken vial into four
syringes and placed them in a refrigerator. After the insulin
was removed from the vial, Plaintiff filled out and signed an
order form for additional insulin. (ECF No. 29-1, p. 7). That
day, Plaintiff received an insulin injection from one of the
four syringes, which he claims was contaminated. The
injection caused a big, red knot to form at the injection
site. The following day, Plaintiff went to receive another
insulin injection and Defendant Hanson used the same syringe,
causing another swollen knot to form. Plaintiff alleges that
on March 19, 2017, Defendant Hanson presented the same
syringe for his use once again. Plaintiff then told Defendant
Hanson he did not want to take the insulin injection because
his side was swollen from the previous injections, he was in
extreme pain, and he did not feel safe receiving another
injection of insulin from the broken bottle.
filed his initial Complaint on April 24, 2017. On June 21, 2017,
Plaintiff filed a Supplement to his Complaint, asserting
claims for medical neglect, cruel and unusual punishment, and
medical malpractice against Defendant Hanson. (ECF No. 14). He
alleges she knowingly gave him contaminated insulin and
“Plaintiff undes went [sic] the unwanton [sic]
infliction of pain by the forced use of contaminated diabetic
needle causing two painful swollen knots on Plaintiff left
side also initiated from the contaminated insulin from a
broke vial of insulin.” (ECF No. 14, pp. 1-2).
January 9, 2018, Defendant Hanson filed the instant Motion
for Summary Judgment, arguing that she is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law because: (1) she was not
deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff's serious medical
need; (2) there is no verified proof that any delay in
medical treatment caused a detrimental effect to Plaintiff;
(3) there is no proof that her alleged medical deliberate
indifference caused an injury to Plaintiff; and (4) she is
entitled to qualified immunity. (ECF No. 27). In addition to
the motion, Defendant Hanson submitted a separate Statement
of Undisputed Facts. (ECF No. 29). Defendant Hanson states
she “did not know or believe the insulin in
Plaintiff's vial and which she put in the syringes was
contaminated or dangerous to Plaintiff's health or
safety” and “she did not know or believe the
syringes she used to remove the insulin from Plaintiff's
vial were contaminated or dangerous to Plaintiff's health
or safety.” (ECF No. 29, p. 3). Defendant Hanson also
submitted an affidavit from Joan Mclean, an advanced practice
nurse who treated inmates at the HCDC in 2016 and 2017. Ms.
Mclean states, “it is [her] opinion that diabetics do,
sometimes, develop ‘knots' or raised areas on the
body where insulin injections are administered. . . .
‘[K]nots' or raised areas at the insulin injection
site do not automatically mean the needle or the insulin
the diabetic used are contaminated or unsafe.” (ECF No.
filed his Response on March 26, 2018, which consists of two
notarized affidavits of Plaintiff. In one of the affidavits,
Plaintiff states, inter alia, that Defendant Hanson
knew that the syringes used to remove insulin from
Plaintiff's vial were dangerous to his health and safety.
(ECF No. 35, p. 1). In the second affidavit, Plaintiff
states, inter alia, that he does not dispute that
knots and raised areas at the insulin injection site for a
diabetic can occur or that these conditions are not always
caused by contaminated or unsafe insulin or needles. (ECF No.
35, p. 9).
judgment is appropriate if, after viewing the facts and all
reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the
nonmoving party, Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith
Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986), the record
“shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any
material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a
matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). “Once a party
moving for summary judgment has made a sufficient showing,
the burden rests with the non-moving party to set forth
specific facts, by affidavit or other evidence, showing that
a genuine issue of material fact exists.” Nat'l
Bank of Commerce v. Dow Chem. Co., 165 F.3d 602, 607
(8th Cir. 1999).
non-moving party “must do more than simply show that
there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material
facts.” Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 586.
“They must show there is sufficient evidence to support
a jury verdict in their favor.” Nat'l
Bank, 165 F.3d at 607 (citing Anderson v. Liberty
Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249 (1986)).
“A case founded on speculation or suspicion is
insufficient to survive a motion for summary judgment.”
Id. (citing Metge v. Baehler, 762 F.2d 621,
625 (8th Cir. 1985)). “When opposing parties tell two
different stories, one of which is blatantly contradicted by
the record, so that no reasonable jury could believe it, a
court should not adopt that version of the facts for purposes
of ruling on a motion for summary judgment.” Scott
v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380 (2007).
Court will first address Defendant Hanson's arguments for
summary judgment on Plaintiff's deliberate indifference
claim. Then, if necessary, the Court will take ...