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.

Randle v. Mussadiq

United States District Court, E.D. Arkansas, Western Division

May 9, 2019

LEODIS RANDLE PLAINTIFF
v.
D. MUSSADIQ, et al. DEFENDANTS

          RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION

         I. Procedure for Filing Objections:

         This Recommended Disposition (“Recommendation”) has been sent to Judge Billy Roy Wilson. Any party may file written objections to this Recommendation. Objections should be specific and should include the factual or legal basis for the objection. To be considered, objections must be received in the office of the Court Clerk within 14 days of this Recommendation.

         If no objections are filed, Judge Wilson can adopt this Recommendation without independently reviewing the record. By not objecting, parties may waive any right to appeal questions of fact.

         II. Background:

         Leodis Randle, an inmate at the Pulaski County Detention Facility (“Detention Facility”), filed this lawsuit without the help of a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Docket entry #1) Because of Mr. Randle's litigation history, he was not eligible to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) absent allegations of imminent danger of serious physical injury. The Court, however, determined that Mr. Randle should be allowed proceed under the imminent-danger exception to the so-called “three strikes” rule. (#37)

         Based on allegations in his fourth amended complaint, Mr. Randle stated deliberate-indifference claims against Defendants Jackson, Hillard, and Harris (the “Medical Defendants”). In addition, he stated excessive-force claims against Defendants Freeman, Cass, Watson, Whitworth, Jenkins, and Newburn. Finally, Mr. Randle stated failure-to-protect claims against Defendants Holladay, Mussadiq, Nelson, and McKanna.

         Because Mr. Randle is proceeding under the imminent danger exception to the “three strikes” rule, he is limited to pursuing those claims that directly relate to the alleged imminent danger. McAlphin v. Toney, 375 F.3d 753, 755 (8th Cir. 2004) (if an “inmate is granted leave to proceed i.f.p. under the ‘imminent danger' exception, the i.f.p. action must be limited to imminent danger claims”). Furthermore, his claims are limited to those that involve a risk of continuing or future injury and not to claims seeking “a remedy for past misconduct.” Martin v. Shelton, 319 F.3d 1048, 1050 (8th Cir. 2003) (emphasis in original). Accordingly, the Court previously dismissed Mr. Randle's remaining claims. (#58)

         All Defendants have now moved for summary judgment on Mr. Randle's claims against them. (#176, #177) Mr. Randle has responded to the Defendants' motions and Defendants Holladay, Mussadiq, Nelson, McKanna, Freeman, Newburn, Jenkins, Whitworth, Watson, and Cass (the “County Defendants”) have replied to Mr. Randle's response. (#186, #188)

         III. Discussion:

         A. Standard

         In a summary judgment, the Court rules on the case without a trial. A party is entitled to summary judgment if-but only if-the evidence shows that there is no genuine dispute about any fact important to the outcome of the case. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 56 and Odom v. Kaizer, 864 F.3d 920, 921 (8th Cir. 2017).

         B. Medical Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment

         1. Undisputed Factual Evidence

         On January 30, 2018, nurse Melissa Grimes (not a party to this lawsuit) conducted Mr. Randle's medical screening at intake. (#177-1 at p.1) At that time, Mr. Randle stated that he did not suffer from seizures and that he did not suffer from any mental health conditions. (Id. at p.3) In addition, Mr. Randle told Ms. Grimes that he was not taking any medication to treat mental health conditions. (Id. at pp.4-5) Nurse Grimes concluded that Mr. Randle had “Stable MH Condition” and recommended that he be housed in general population. (Id. at p.7)

         On February 12th, Mr. Randle was examined by Defendant Jackson based on a “Medical Staff Request.” (Id. at p.9) At that time, Mr. Randle notified Defendant Jackson that he was undergoing mental health treatment for depression and that he had a prescription for Depakote. (Id. at p.10) Mr. Randle, however, also “denied any concerns and reported they [sic] are coping adequately with incarceration at this time.” (Id.)

         Defendant Jackson conducted a mental health assessment of Mr. Randle and concluded that he could stay “in unit.” (Id. at p.12) He advised Mr. Randle “to submit [a] request for follow up as needed.” (Id.)

         On March 2nd, Quelinda Tillman (not a party to this lawsuit) assessed Mr. Randle after Mr. Randle reported that his right shoulder had been injured during an altercation on March 1st. (Id.) Ms. Tilman noted that Mr. Randle was to be examined by the provider that day and noted that an x-ray examination of Mr. Randle's shoulder should be ordered “stat.” (Id.)

         On the same day, the medical provider, Kendra Roberts (not a party to this lawsuit), examined Mr. Randle. (#177-2 at p.1) Ms. Roberts noted “edema, deformity to right shoulder, elbow, [and] wrist.” (Id. at p.3) She diagnosed Mr. Randle with “acute injury to right shoulder, elbow, wrist, [and] hand.” (Id.) Ms. Roberts ordered an x-ray examination of Mr. Randle's “right shoulder, right elbow, and wrist/hand.” (Id.) She also ordered ibuprofen, as well as a sling with an ice pack for Mr. Randle. (Id. at pp.3-4)

         On March 7th, nurse Kimberly Harrison (not a party to this lawsuit) examined Mr. Randle. (#177-1 at p.13) At that time, Mr. Randle complained that he suffered from seizures and that he had previously been prescribed Depakote. (Id.) Nurse Harrison noted that Mr. Randle had stated that he was not taking any medication at intake. (Id.) At that encounter, Nurse Harrison told Mr. Randle that his x-ray examination results were “normal.” (Id. at ...


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.