Adams v. Manglicmot

Background

Herron A. Adams, a state prisoner representing himself, brought this federal civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that prison nurses Lina Manglicmot and Anudokem were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs, violating the Eighth Amendment. Adams claimed Manglicmot failed to ensure that he received a lower bunk despite his history of seizures. He claimed Anudokem made offensive comments after his August 2018 seizure and failed to provide or properly process prescribed Tylenol.

Adams had a documented seizure history, but when he arrived at the facility on February 28, 2018, his records did not contain the forms documenting a lower-bunk accommodation. He was assigned an upper bunk and suffered a seizure and fall on March 1, 2018. He was moved to a lower bunk the next day after an officer consulted a physician. Adams later suffered another seizure, was treated at a hospital, and was prescribed Tylenol. Anudokem’s medical notes stated that the treatment plan included Tylenol for pain.

The court had previously found potentially valid claims against Manglicmot, Anudokem, and four other defendants. During the summary-judgment proceedings, Adams conceded that summary judgment should be granted as to the four other defendants: Lozano, Hardian, Deluna, and Coleman. Adams also raised a new allegation that Manglicmot intentionally failed to process seizure medication allegedly given to her by transportation staff. That allegation was not included in his complaint.

Legal standard

Summary judgment is appropriate when the evidence shows no genuine dispute over a fact that could affect the outcome and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The party opposing summary judgment must identify specific evidence that could allow a reasonable jury to rule in that party’s favor.

For an Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference claim, a prisoner must show both an objectively serious medical risk and that the official knew about a substantial risk of serious harm but deliberately disregarded it. Negligence, an accidental failure, a medical mistake, or a disagreement about treatment is not enough.

Manglicmot

The court found that falling from an upper bunk during a seizure presented an objectively serious risk. But it concluded that Adams had not shown Manglicmot knew that failing to arrange a lower bunk created a substantial risk of serious harm and deliberately disregarded that risk.

The court relied on the absence of a lower-bunk accommodation form in Adams’s records and on policies stating that nurses did not have authority to assign or change a lower-bunk accommodation. The applicable guidelines also stated that a patient qualified for a bottom bunk based on a documented motor seizure within the previous year or a reduction or change in seizure medication within the previous six months. Adams’s last seizure before the transfer had occurred more than a year earlier. Manglicmot marked Adams as a high-priority patient who should see a physician within one to seven days, and the court found that nothing in the records conclusively established that he was entitled to a lower bunk.

The court characterized Manglicmot’s failure to speak with a physician during the initial screening, at most, as negligence. It also rejected Adams’s reliance on prison policies because violating a prison policy alone does not establish a Section 1983 constitutional violation. The court found Adams’s assertion that Manglicmot acted to retaliate for his comments speculative and unsupported by evidence creating a genuine factual dispute. It therefore granted summary judgment for Manglicmot.

The court did not consider Adams’s new allegation that Manglicmot intentionally failed to process his seizure medication as a properly pleaded theory at the summary-judgment stage. The court also noted that Adams conceded he had not exhausted the prison grievance process for that claim and had not shown that the grievance process was unavailable to him.

Anudokem

The court found that Adams had not produced evidence preventing summary judgment on his claim against Anudokem. Her medical records showed that she entered Tylenol into his treatment plan. Adams acknowledged that she was not responsible for dispensing the medication and that she had entered Tylenol into the plan.

The court found no evidence that Anudokem’s failure to notify a primary-care provider violated Adams’s constitutional rights or that Tylenol was an immediately required medication requiring such notification. Adams also did not provide hospital records supporting his argument about the prescription. His theory that Anudokem conspired with another prison employee to deny him Tylenol was speculative.

The court further concluded that Anudokem’s comments, although offensive to Adams, did not establish deliberate indifference because Adams had not shown that she failed to respond to his medical needs in a way that caused him harm. The court therefore granted summary judgment on the claim against Anudokem as well.

Disposition

The court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment. It directed the Clerk to enter judgment in defendants’ favor, terminate the motion, and close the file. Because the court found that Adams’s constitutional rights were not violated, it did not address defendants’ qualified-immunity arguments.