Acosta v. Nelson
561 F. App'x 4
D.C. Cir.2014Background
- Acosta is a federal prisoner with a degenerative elbow injury seeking reparative surgery.
- In July 2006, a BOP doctor recommended a medical transfer for evaluation and treatment, which was denied.
- Defendants Dr. Nelson and Dr. Hernandez-Ricoff denied the transfer and Acosta received conservative pain treatment.
- Acosta sued claiming the denials violated the Eighth Amendment; the district court granted summary judgment for the defendants.
- The issue is whether there is a triable dispute on deliberate indifference under Farmer v. Brennan and related standards.
- The court held the record shows at most negligence, and summary judgment was proper; procedures and authority for denial were proper.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendants acted with deliberate indifference in denying surgery | Acosta argues denial showed excessive risk to health | Nelson and Hernandez-Ricoff denied based on available information | No triable dispute; conduct was not deliberate indifference |
| Whether defendants acted within authority to deny the transfer | Acosta contends denials exceeded authority | Denials aligned with Program Statement and institutional capabilities | Defendants acted within authority; no material fact showing a violation |
| Whether law-of-the-case or discovery issues preclude summary judgment | Eleventh Circuit law-of-the-case precludes relief; discovery needed | Summary judgment appropriate despite broader discovery | Law-of-the-case did not apply; no discovery needed to deny summary judgment |
| Whether summary judgment was properly decided given pro se status and notice | Acosta lacked adequate notice and opportunity to respond | Acosta received full notice of summary judgment effects | Summary judgment proper; Acosta failed to show need for discovery or response |
Key Cases Cited
- Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994) (deliberate indifference standard for inmate health and safety)
- Farmer v. Moritsugu, 163 F.3d 610 (D.C.Cir.1998) (prison official knowledge and disregard of risk standard)
- Jones v. Bernanke, 557 F.3d 670 (D.C.Cir.2009) (review of record in light of pro se status)
- Neal v. Kelly, 963 F.2d 453 (D.C.Cir.1992) (notice requirements for pro se plaintiffs in summary judgment)
- LaShawn A. v. Barry, 87 F.3d 1389 (D.C.Cir.1996) (law-of-the-case limitations and summary judgment posture)
- Colbert v. Potter, 471 F.3d 158 (D.C.Cir.2006) (no improper conversion from dismissal to summary judgment)
- Potter v. District of Columbia, 558 F.3d 542 (D.C.Cir.2009) (summary judgment standards for pro se parties)