524 F. App'x 454
10th Cir.2013Background
- Ankeney, a Colorado prisoner, was housed at Sterling Correctional Facility from 2003 to 2004 and had knee pain evaluations.
- Dr. Brooks in 2003 diagnosed a likely medial meniscal tear and possible ACL tear, ordering an MRI.
- Dr. Pohlman in 2004 diagnosed a meniscal tear and ordered a scope and meniscectomy, but the insurance provider denied due to near release.
- After release and subsequent re-incarceration in 2008 at Fremont, intake noted prior diagnoses; he later reported knee slipping and received x-rays and pain medications.
- Ankeney alleged nurses impeded care and that non-emergency requests were denied by budget policy; he filed a § 1983 suit alleging deliberate indifference.
- The district court dismissed most claims, granted summary judgment for Creany, Klenke, and Hibbs on the live claim, denied reinstating a dismissed claim, and denied injunctive relief; the Sixth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Deliberate indifference for no MRI or specialist referral | Ankeney alleges Creany, Klenke, Hibbs ignored prior MRI/surgery recommendations. | Disagreement with treatment does not establish Eighth Amendment violation; no deliberate indifference. | Dismissal proper; no plausible deliberate-indifference claim. |
| Reinstatement of a dismissed claim based on new evidence | Evidence from discovery (Brooks/Pohlman diagnoses) warrants reinstatement. | Plaintiff knew of prior opinions; not new evidence; no manifest injustice. | District court's denial of reinstatement affirmed. |
| Summary judgment on failure-to-treat claim | Defendants refused to see/examine as condition worsened. | Records show ongoing treatment; disagreement is malpractice, not constitutional violation. | Summary judgment affirmed; no Eighth Amendment violation. |
| Supervisor liability for plan to deny care | Zavaras, Hartley, DeCesaro, and Doe participated in a scheme to deny rights to save money. | Conclusive allegations lacking; no personal participation proven. | Dismissal proper; no supervisory liability shown. |
| Injunctive relief denial | Injunctive relief warranted due to ongoing denial of care. | Claims lack merit; no irreparable injury shown. | Denial of injunction affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (Supreme Court, 1976) (deliberate indifference requires objective and subjective components)
- Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (Supreme Court, 1994) (definition of deliberate indifference; knowledge of risk)
- Fitzgerald v. Corrections Corp. of Am., 403 F.3d 1134 (10th Cir. 2005) (medical malpractice not a constitutional claim; mere difference of opinion not Eighth Amendment violation)
- Perkins v. Kansas Dep’t of Corrections, 165 F.3d 803 (10th Cir. 1999) (prisoner disagreement with treatment is not a claim of constitutional violation)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (Supreme Court, 2007) (plausibility standard for pleading)
- Khalik v. United Air Lines, 671 F.3d 1188 (10th Cir. 2012) (conclusory statements disregarded in 12(b)(6) analysis)
- Coll v. First Am. Title Ins. Co., 642 F.3d 876 (10th Cir. 2011) (de novo review of Rule 12(b)(6) dismissals; adequacy of allegations)
- Servants of the Paraclete v. Does, 204 F.3d 1005 (10th Cir. 2000) (grounds for granting a Rule 59(e) reconsideration)
- Rimbert v. Eli Lilly & Co., 647 F.3d 1247 (10th Cir. 2011) (abuse-of-discretion review for interim rulings)