Garcia v. Zola
5:16-ct-03300
E.D.N.C.May 24, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Wilfred Garcia, a federal inmate, sued medical personnel under Bivens claiming Eighth Amendment violations arising from a nephrectomy performed while he was at FMC Butner and Granville Community Hospital.
- Prior to incarceration Garcia had monitored angiolipoma tumors in both kidneys while being treated for chronic myeloid leukemia (CML); CT at Granville showed a large left‑kidney tumor and smaller tumors elsewhere.
- Granville physicians removed his left kidney after he presented with severe abdominal and groin pain; Garcia alleges the kidney was functioning and the surgery was unnecessary and violated hospital protocol.
- Garcia later was diagnosed with recurrent CML and underwent treatment with only one remaining kidney; he alleges malpractice, negligence, delay and denial of proper medical care, and deliberate indifference under the Eighth Amendment.
- The complaint included discharge summary and administrative remedy documents; the court screened the pro se complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
- The district court concluded Garcia had received medical attention and that his disagreement with treatment amounts to, at most, malpractice or negligence and dismissed the Eighth Amendment claim without prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether removal of plaintiff's kidney by treating physicians violated the Eighth Amendment (deliberate indifference to serious medical need) | Garcia argues the nephrectomy was unnecessary given functioning kidneys and prior oncologic considerations, causing harm and reflecting deliberate indifference | Defendants contend Garcia received prompt evaluation and treatment; their medical judgment (nephrectomy based on CT and history) does not amount to constitutional wrongdoing | Court held the allegations show medical care was provided; plaintiff's disagreement and alleged malpractice do not meet deliberate indifference standard and dismissed the claim |
| Whether negligence/medical malpractice suffices for § 1983 Eighth Amendment relief | Garcia alleges malpractice, negligence, delay and denial of care | Defendants argue negligence or differing medical judgment is not a constitutional violation | Court held negligence/medical malpractice insufficient to establish deliberate indifference under the Eighth Amendment |
| Whether pro se complaint survives frivolity screening under § 1915 | Garcia seeks to proceed on Bivens Eighth Amendment claim | Defendants implicitly argue claim lacks an arguable legal basis if only malpractice alleged | Court dismissed complaint as frivolous for failing to state a cognizable Eighth Amendment claim |
| Whether plaintiff was entitled to his chosen course of treatment | Garcia contends treatment choices (keeping both kidneys) were required due to CML | Defendants argue physicians may choose appropriate treatment and inmate cannot demand specific treatment | Court held inmates are not entitled to choose their treatment; disagreement does not state a constitutional claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (recognizes implied damages action against federal officers for constitutional violations)
- Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (frivolous‑complaint standard and dismissal for indisputably meritless legal theories)
- Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25 (permits courts to pierce factual allegations in § 1915 screening)
- Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (medical malpractice or negligence not sufficient to show Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference)
- Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (deliberate indifference requires actual knowledge of and disregard of substantial risk)
- Strickler v. Waters, 989 F.2d 1375 (two‑part Eighth Amendment standard: objective harm and subjective deliberate indifference)
- Grayson v. Peed, 195 F.3d 692 (deliberate indifference requires apparent and serious need and denial must be deliberate)
- Iko v. Shreve, 535 F.3d 225 (deliberate indifference sets a high bar for recovery)
- Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841 (disagreement with medical treatment not actionable under § 1983)
- Adams v. Rice, 40 F.3d 72 (clarifies legally frivolous complaints under § 1915)