Johnny Grogan v. Parveen Kumar
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 18904
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- Johnny Grogan, a Mississippi state prisoner with a documented history of depression and suicidal ideation, sued SMCI personnel under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to serious psychiatric needs after his transfer to SMCI in Sept. 2013.
- He claimed inadequate treatment by psychiatrist Dr. Parveen Kumar and counselor Cynthia Franklin, improper grievance processing by Dr. Ronald Woodall, and refusal to assist by Lt. Eduardo Diaz and unnamed nurses after two suicide attempts (Jan. 2014 and July 4–5, 2014).
- Medical records show regular psychiatric and counseling visits, medication management, and a July 5, 2014 note by Kumar indicating Grogan was "doing well;" Grogan and six inmate declarations dispute that he was seen and say he lay unattended for two days after an overdose.
- The magistrate judge granted summary judgment for all defendants; Grogan appealed. The panel reviewed exhaustion, deliberate indifference theories, and discovery rulings.
- The Fifth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for Diaz (procedural posture/exhaustion), Franklin (treatment course), and Woodall (grievance adjudicator), vacated summary judgment as to Kumar and the unnamed nurses only with respect to the July 2014 suicide-attempt claim, and vacated denial of a limited subpoena request for potentially relevant camera footage.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether SMCI mental-health policies/statewide staffing constitute deliberate indifference | Grogan: lack of 24/7 psychiatrist, insufficient counselors, poor training and segregation policies create constitutional risk | Defendants: policy concerns alone do not show objective risk or subjective awareness required for Eighth Amendment claim | Rejected — policy/aspirational complaints do not by themselves state a constitutional claim |
| Whether Kumar and Franklin’s general course of treatment was deliberately indifferent | Grogan: psychiatrist/counselor were professionally negligent, delayed screening, inadequate attention | Defendants: medical records show regular, good-faith treatment and medication management; disagreements are not deliberate indifference | Affirmed — no genuine dispute that treatment course was nonculpable (no deliberate indifference) |
| Whether Kumar and unnamed nurses were deliberately indifferent in response to July 4–5, 2014 suicide attempt | Grogan: he overdosed and lay on floor for two days unattended; medical records are false; several inmate declarations corroborate him | Defendants: medical records (including a July 5 exam note) show he was seen and stable | Vacated summary judgment for these defendants as to July 2014 claim — genuine factual dispute precludes summary judgment |
| Whether denial of subpoena for SMCI camera footage was proper | Grogan: footage is essential to prove July 2014 events and refute medical records | Defendants: footage likely within defendants' control or not necessary | Court vacated denial in narrow respect — Grogan may renew Rule 45 subpoena motion for camera footage if case proceeds to trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to serious medical needs)
- Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (deliberate indifference requires subjective awareness and disregard of substantial risk)
- Schlagenhauf v. Holder, 379 U.S. 104 (Rule 35 requires mental condition to be genuinely in controversy and good cause)
- Geiger v. Jowers, 404 F.3d 371 (no due process right in inmate grievance procedures)
- Gobert v. Caldwell, 463 F.3d 339 (elements showing deliberate indifference versus negligence)
- Domino v. Texas Dep't of Criminal Justice, 239 F.3d 752 (conduct evincing wanton disregard for medical needs)
- Skotak v. Tenneco Resins, Inc., 953 F.2d 909 (appellate court generally will not consider evidence not presented to district court)
- Myers v. Klevenhagen, 97 F.3d 91 (policy/practice disagreements do not alone establish constitutional violation)