United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, Fayetteville Division
OPINION AND ORDER
HOLMES, III, CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE.
proceeds in this matter pro se and in forma
pauperis pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Currently
before the Court is Defendants' Motion for Summary
Judgment. (ECF Nos. 29, 30, 31.).
Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleges his federal
constitutional rights have been violated by the denial of
medical care while incarcerated at the Benton County
Detention Center (BCDC) as a pretrial detainee. (ECF No. 11
at 4-5). He alleges he was shot four times in the back on
January 20, 2018. (Id. at 3-4). Plaintiff alleges
bullets remain lodged in both his neck and rotator cuff, but
the areas were x-rayed and he was told nothing could be
done. (Id. at 5). Plaintiff identifies
Dr. Saez as the physician at the BCDC. Starting January 23,
2018, Plaintiff alleges Dr. Saez could have given him pain
medication for his injuries, but instead did not permit him
to have any pain medication “at all.”
(Id. at 4).
proceeds against all Defendants in their official and
personal capacity. (Id. at 4). He seeks compensatory
and punitive damages. (Id. at 7).
filed their Motion for Summary Judgment on December 12, 2018.
(ECF Nos. 29, 30, 31). On December 13, 2018, the Court
entered an Order directing Plaintiff to file a Response to
the Summary Judgment Motion. (ECF No. 32). Plaintiff filed
his Response on January 25, 2019. (ECF No. 35).
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.” National
Bank of Commerce v. Dow Chemical 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." National 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).
argue summary judgment in their favor is appropriate because:
(1) Defendants were not deliberately indifferent to
Plaintiff's serious medical needs; (2) no policy or
custom of Southern Health Partners, Inc. caused Plaintiff to
suffer any unconstitutional harm; (3) Plaintiff cannot
“meet proof with proof” to establish the
existence of a genuine issue of material fact. (ECF No. 31).
provided a one-paragraph Response, stating as follows:
“They say my injurys [sic] are chronic but I'm not
being treated as so. My pain is terriable [sic] everyday and
they could make this at least more bearable. My pain and
suffering make my life not as worth living. The quality of my
life is pain every day.” (ECF No. 35 at 1) (errors in
Eighth Amendment prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment
prohibits deliberate indifference to prisoners' serious
medical needs. Luckert v. Dodge County, 684 F.3d
808, 817 (8th Cir. 2012). To prevail on his Eighth Amendment
claim, Plaintiff must prove that Defendants acted with
deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs.
Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976).
deliberate indifference standard includes “both an
objective and a subjective component: ‘The [Plaintiff]
must demonstrate (1) that [he] suffered [from] objectively
serious medical needs and (2) that the prison officials
actually knew of but deliberately disregarded those
needs.'” Jolly v. Knudsen,205 F.3d ...