Jennings v. Mohr
2:17-cv-00248
S.D. OhioMay 8, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Gregory A. Jennings, a pro se prisoner, filed an IFP complaint alleging Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to serious medical needs related to cervical/back surgery, chronic pain, headaches, and falls occurring in or before 2014.
- Jennings alleges specific encounters with Nurse Kelly Haggard (moved him after a fall; confined him to cell while she worked) and Dr. DeLaCruz (denied certain medications, performed limited exams, removed paperwork); he names additional medical staff but gives few facts tying them to wrongdoing.
- Plaintiff admits some treatment: multiple surgeries, specialist visits, MRIs, and ongoing therapy; he contends treatment was inadequate or delayed and that officials minimized his condition.
- The Magistrate Judge screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and concluded the action should be dismissed.
- The court found the claims likely time‑barred (events occurred in or before 2014; § 1983 has a two‑year limitations period) and, even if timely, insufficient to state an Eighth Amendment claim because they largely reflect disagreements over medical judgment or lack necessary facts showing personal involvement or deliberate indifference.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness/statute of limitations | Jennings argues he did not pursue earlier and implicitly asks court to hear longstanding harms | Events occurred in or before 2014; § 1983 has a two‑year SOL so claims after March 27, 2015 are barred | Complaint appears time‑barred and dismissal recommended |
| Eighth Amendment — adequacy of medical care | Jennings alleges denial/delay of needed specialist care, removal of devices, ignored medication requests, understaffing causing harm | Defendants provided surgeries, MRIs, specialists and ongoing treatment; disagreements over timing/type of care are medical judgments | Disagreement with treatment or delay does not show deliberate indifference; dismissal recommended |
| Personal involvement of defendants | Jennings names multiple staff but offers few facts linking most to unconstitutional conduct | Absent factual allegations of each defendant's personal involvement, § 1983 claim fails | Claims against defendants other than Nurse Haggard and Dr. DeLaCruz lack personal‑involvement allegations and should be dismissed |
| Specific acts by Haggard/Dr. DeLaCruz — deliberate indifference | Jennings contends Haggard moved him despite a broken neck and confined him; DeLaCruz refused medications and allegedly hid paperwork | Responding staff relayed physician opinions; actions described, if true, amount at most to negligence/medical judgment, not deliberate indifference | Allegations do not rise to "so woefully inadequate as to amount to no treatment"; malpractice/ disagreement insufficient — dismissal recommended |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standard; claims must be facially plausible)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility standard for complaints)
- Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (medical malpractice vs. Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference)
- Blackmore v. Kalamazoo Cty., 390 F.3d 890 (sixth circuit on objective/subjective components of medical deliberate indifference)
- Alspaugh v. McConnell, 643 F.3d 162 (distinguishing inadequate treatment from no treatment; courts reluctant to second‑guess medical judgments)
- Browning v. Pendleton, 869 F.2d 989 (statute of limitations for § 1983 claims follows state limitations period)
- Grinter v. Knight, 532 F.3d 567 (personal involvement requirement for § 1983)
- Dotson v. Wilkinson, 477 F. Supp. 2d 838 (dismissing Eighth Amendment claim where plaintiff received treatment)