Clark v. Loranth
1:13-cv-00556
| D.S.C. | Mar 12, 2014Background
- Plaintiff William James Clark, a federal inmate at FCI-Williamsburg, sued medical and supervisory BOP officials under Bivens alleging denial of medical care, cancellation of tests, medication reduction/withdrawal, and retaliation after he coughed up blood and reported potentially cancerous findings from prior records.
- Defendants are Dr. Victor Loranth (treating physician), Warden Cruz, Associate Wardens Johnson and Langford; Plaintiff seeks monetary and injunctive relief.
- Defendants moved to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment; the court treated the motion as one for summary judgment and gave Clark Roseboro notice.
- Defendants argued lack of subject-matter jurisdiction for official-capacity monetary claims (sovereign immunity), failure to exhaust administrative remedies under the PLRA, and lack of personal involvement by supervisory defendants.
- Administrative-record evidence showed Clark did not properly pursue the BOP’s multi-level grievance process for his medical/retaliation complaints before filing suit; some regional filings were rejected as filed at the wrong level and there is no institutional BP-9 on record.
- The magistrate judge recommended granting summary judgment: dismiss official-capacity monetary claims for lack of jurisdiction, grant summary judgment for failure to exhaust, and dismiss claims against supervisory defendants for lack of personal involvement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Official-capacity monetary damages | Clark sought money from officials for constitutional injuries | Officials argued official-capacity monetary claims are barred by sovereign immunity | Dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction (sovereign immunity) |
| Exhaustion under PLRA | Clark contends he filed informal and BP-9 grievances that were ignored or destroyed | Defendants produced BOP records showing no proper institutional-level exhaustion; regional appeals were rejected; Clark filed suit before exhausting | Summary judgment for defendants: Clark failed to properly exhaust administrative remedies; claims barred |
| Supervisory liability of Cruz, Johnson, Langford | Clark alleged supervisors allowed/retaliated against him | Defendants argued no personal involvement or deliberate indifference by supervisors; supervisors may rely on medical staff decisions | Summary judgment for supervisors: Clark failed to plead facts showing personal involvement or tacit authorization |
| Merits of deliberate indifference against treating physician (Dr. Loranth) | Clark alleged Dr. Loranth called him a faker, canceled tests, and cut meds endangering his life | Defendants sought dismissal on exhaustion and other defenses; record disputes exist but exhaustion was primary barrier | Claims against Dr. Loranth were recommended dismissed on summary judgment grounds principally for failure to exhaust; merits not reached on full adjudication |
Key Cases Cited
- Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (establishing federal remedy for constitutional violations by federal actors)
- FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471 (Bivens does not extend to suits against federal agencies; sovereign immunity principles)
- Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (PLRA exhaustion is mandatory and is a prerequisite to suit)
- Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81 (requires proper exhaustion in accordance with prison procedures)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment burden-shifting standards)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment — view evidence in light most favorable to nonmovant)
- Miltier v. Beorn, 896 F.2d 848 (standard for supervisory liability for denial of medical care)