Joel Barcelona v. Sergeant Parish
20-11229
| 11th Cir. | Jul 30, 2021Background
- Joel Barcelona, a former inmate at South Bay Correctional Facility, sued Nurses Chunnu and Kelly and Officers Parrish and Jones under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference after repeated complaints of chest pain and shortness of breath that culminated in emergency treatment and surgery for a duodenal ulcer.
- Between April 25–27, 2016 Barcelona alleges nurses told him he was lying, refused to call 911, and sent him back to his cell; later officers found him in distress and he was transported to Lakeside Medical Center.
- At Lakeside Barcelona received IVs, oxygen, a blood transfusion, and surgery on April 29 for stomach bleeding; he contends Parrish and Jones removed his IV/oxygen and forced a premature discharge on April 30.
- Defendants produced medical records showing assessments and testing at South Bay and Lakeside, a Lakeside physician’s involvement and that Barcelona was stable and discharged to the correctional facility accompanied by officers.
- The district court adopted a magistrate judge’s recommendation granting summary judgment for all defendants; Barcelona appealed contesting summary judgment, the denial of leave to amend (as to Officer Wilson and official-capacity/pattern claims), and denial of appointed counsel.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Deliberate indifference by Nurse Chunnu | Chunnu knew of chest pain/shortness of breath, refused to treat, accused him of lying | Medical assessments were performed; differences in diagnosis are at most negligence; other nurses treated him | Summary judgment affirmed: plaintiff failed to show more than disagreement or negligence or causation linking Chunnu to the injury |
| Deliberate indifference by Officers Parrish & Jones for removing him from hospital | Officers ordered removal of IV/oxygen and forced premature discharge, causing risk | Medical records show Lakeside treated and stabilized Barcelona and properly discharged him; no objective serious need at removal | Summary judgment affirmed: no objectively serious medical need at time of removal; no deliberate indifference shown |
| Leave to amend to add Officer Wilson and official-capacity/pattern claims | Should be allowed to amend to add Wilson and a municipal/pattern claim about emergency-protocols | Amendment would be futile; plaintiff alleges only facts particular to his case; no plausible theory tying Wilson to causation | Denial of leave affirmed: amendment would be futile and official-capacity/pattern claim inadequately pleaded (and some arguments forfeited) |
| Appointment of counsel | Counsel necessary due to medical and legal issues | Appointment is discretionary and warranted only in exceptional circumstances; plaintiff’s claims straightforward | Denial affirmed: no exceptional circumstances; district court did not abuse discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (U.S. 1976) (establishes Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to serious medical needs doctrine)
- Hill v. Dekalb Reg'l Youth Det. Ctr., 40 F.3d 1176 (11th Cir. 1994) (definition of "serious" medical need)
- Farrow v. West, 320 F.3d 1235 (11th Cir. 2003) (subjective knowledge requirement and risk of serious harm standard)
- Goebert v. Lee Cnty., 510 F.3d 1312 (11th Cir. 2007) (elements of Eighth Amendment medical claim)
- McElligott v. Foley, 182 F.3d 1248 (11th Cir. 1999) (deliberate indifference involves subjective awareness and disregard)
- Harris v. Thigpen, 941 F.2d 1495 (11th Cir. 1991) (medical malpractice/difference of opinion not constitutional violation)
- Smith v. Fla. Dep't of Corr., 713 F.3d 1059 (11th Cir. 2013) (standard of review for summary judgment)
- Silva v. Bieluch, 351 F.3d 1045 (11th Cir. 2003) (leave to amend pro se complaints at screening stage)
- Tazoe v. Airbus S.A.S., 631 F.3d 1321 (11th Cir. 2011) (amendment futile exception)
- Poole v. Lambert, 819 F.2d 1025 (11th Cir. 1987) (appointment of counsel in civil cases is discretionary and reserved for exceptional circumstances)
- Fowler v. Jones, 899 F.2d 1088 (11th Cir. 1990) (no constitutional right to counsel; denial proper where claims straightforward)
- City of Okla. City v. Tuttle, 471 U.S. 808 (U.S. 1985) (single incident insufficient to impose municipal liability)
- Craig v. Floyd Cnty., 643 F.3d 1306 (11th Cir. 2011) (municipal liability requires pattern or practice, not a single incident)