Jay Nottingham v. Joel Richardson
499 F. App'x 368
5th Cir.2012Background
- Nottingham sued pro se under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging Eighth/Fourteenth Amendment violations and RA/ADA discrimination during his jail stay at Randall County and transit to TDCJ.
- The district court dismissed on multiple grounds, including failure to exhaust administrative remedies under PLRA, statute-of-limitations defenses, qualified immunity, and failure to state a claim.
- Nottingham was booked at Randall County on January 28, 2008; he allegedly received inadequate medical care and was denied certain accommodations (e.g., regular wheelchair) while detained there.
- Parademedics Davis and Lacey treated Nottingham, adjusted Dilantin, and provided examinations and medications; Nottingham contends care was delayed or insufficient.
- On March 25, 2008, Nottingham was transferred to TDCJ in a non-handicapped van, allegedly left on the floor for a long transport, and claims severe illness upon arrival.
- Nottingham filed suit March 22, 2010; the court held that his claims arising before March 22, 2008 were time-barred and that exhausted remedies were not shown.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was there proper PLRA exhaustion of administrative remedies? | Nottingham exhausted (or attempted to) administrative remedies. | Nottingham did not exhaust available remedies. | Exhaustion not shown; dismissal affirmed. |
| Do continuing-tort accrual principles save pre-2008 claims? | Continuing-tort doctrine salvages ongoing medical-denial claims. | Doctrine inapplicable; accrual occurred before 2008. | Continuing-tort doctrine inapplicable; pre-2008 claims time-barred. |
| Are RA and ADA claims viable against the county jail? | Discrimination and accessibility violations under RA/ADA. | RA requires federal funding; ADA claims fail as to disability discrimination. | RA inapplicable; ADA claims dismissed. |
| Did Nottingham establish deliberate-indifference to medical needs during May–March 2008 period? | Medical care and monitoring were inadequate. | Evidence shows regular medical contact and treatment; no deliberate indifference proven. | No evidence of deliberate indifference; claims dismissed. |
| Was denial of appointment of counsel an abuse of discretion? | Counsel should be appointed due to proceedings complexity. | Not eligible for § 1915 or § 3006A appointment; denial proper. | No abuse; district court properly denied appointment of counsel. |
Key Cases Cited
- Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81 (Sup. Ct. 2006) (strict exhaustion required; no substantial compliance)
- Dillon v. Rogers, 596 F.3d 260 (5th Cir. 2010) (exhaustion must be proper; available remedies)
- Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731 (Sup. Ct. 2001) (administrative remedies must be exhausted even if not a remedy for the relief sought)
- Collins v. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, 224 F.3d 496 (5th Cir. 2000) (Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal standards; pleading requirements)
- Lavellee v. Listi, 611 F.2d 1129 (5th Cir. 1980) (continuing-tort doctrine related to accrual in § 1983 claims)
- Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (Sup. Ct. 1976) (prisoner's right to adequate medical care under Eighth Amendment)
- Habe Hare v. City of Corinth, 74 F.3d 633 (5th Cir. 1996) (pretrial detainee rights to medical care; en banc discussion)
- Hale v. King, 642 F.3d 499 (5th Cir. 2011) (ADA disability- discrimination framework and elements)
- Gamble v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (Sup. Ct. 1976) (deliberate indifference standard for medical care)