Clincy v. Atwood
2011 Miss. App. LEXIS 345
Miss. Ct. App.2011Background
- Clincy, an inmate at EMCF, had his complaint filed sua sponte dismissed by Lauderdale County Circuit Court as frivolous in relation to MDOC ARP claims against Atwood, Caskey, and Epps.
- He alleges his arthritis medication was confiscated at EMCF in 2009, causing back pain, and that a May 2009 nurse visit and a $6 charge were improper.
- Clincy pursued MDOC ARP requests seeking doctor examination, treatment, a refund of the $6 co-pay, and return of arthritis medication; ARP denials followed, with a later denial on a third ARP.
- The circuit court stayed the case to allow exhaustion of ARP or evidence that ARP had been completed, then dismissed with prejudice after finding no sound basis in fact or law.
- On appeal, Clincy argues violations of due process/Eighth Amendment due to medical care denial and a takings/fourteenth amendment challenge to the non-emergency medical charge; the Mississippi Court of Appeals affirms.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Denial of medical care violates due process or Eighth Amendment? | Clincy asserts denial of treatment violated due process and constituted cruel punishment. | Defendants contend no constitutional violation; claim is unsupported by facts or authority. | Meritless; record supports ARP findings and standard care compliance. |
| Non-emergency medical charge violates due process or Takings Clause? | Clincy claims § 47-5-179 deprives him of property without due process and violates the Takings Clause. | MDOC policy and statute permit non-emergency charges; issue procedurally barred and unsupported. | Procedurally barred; record shows proper adherence to policy and no rights violation. |
| Supervisory liability for Atwood and Caskey | Clincy seeks supervisory liability for knowledge of medical needs and failure to treat. | Claims fail because they are based on supervisory status, not personal involvement. | Affirmed dismissal; ARP-based agency action supports relief rejection. |
Key Cases Cited
- Duncan v. Johnson, 14 So. 3d 760 (Miss.Ct.App.2009) (sua sponte dismissal of frivolous complaints)
- Huggins v. State, 928 So. 2d 981 (Miss.Ct.App.2006) (three-part test for frivolous in forma pauperis actions)
- Evans v. State, 725 So. 2d 613 (Miss.1997) (frivolousness framework as cited by Huggins)
- Clay v. Epps, 19 So. 3d 743 (Miss.Ct.App.2008) (agency action review standards; substantial evidence standard)
- Siggers v. Epps, 962 So. 2d 78 (Miss.Ct.App.2007) (agency review framework in Mississippi courts)
- Edwards v. State, 856 So. 2d 587 (Miss.Ct.App.2003) (failure to cite authority bars review)
- Jordan v. State, 995 So. 2d 94 (Miss.2008) (appellate burden to show reversible error)
- Edlin v. State, 533 So. 2d 403 (Miss.1988) (appellate review standards)