LaPine 305535 v. Corizon Inc.
1:18-cv-00102
| W.D. Mich. | May 31, 2019Background
- Plaintiff Darrin LaPine, a Michigan prisoner, sued Corizon, Dr. Victor Dominguez‑Bem, Dr. Jeffrey Stieve, Pamella Friess, A. Mathews, Subrina Aiken, and Amy Houtz for alleged Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference and retaliation based on denial/rescission of a wrist‑brace accommodation and other medical care arising in 2014 at Lakeland CF. Two defendants (Mathews, Houtz) were previously dismissed on misjoinder grounds.
- Plaintiff alleges his prescribed wrist brace was taken during an emergency mobilization and that Dominguez‑Bem and Friess later rescinded the accommodation; he alleges other denials of care and retaliatory transfers/confinement involving other staff.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment: Corizon and Dominguez‑Bem argued lack of constitutional violation; Stieve, Friess, and Aiken argued failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
- Medical records show examinations by Dr. Dominguez‑Bem documenting wrist pain and osteoarthritis, conservative treatment (medication, bottom‑bunk), and a determination that a brace was not indicated; Plaintiff disputes the medical judgment and claims negligence and disagreement with treatment decisions.
- Prison grievance records show multiple grievances; only grievances alleging rescission of the wrist‑brace accommodation were pursued through all steps against Dominguez‑Bem and Friess. Most grievances did not identify Stieve or Aiken or were rejected or duplicative.
- Magistrate Judge Carmody recommended granting summary judgment to all defendants: Dominguez‑Bem and Friess on the merits (no Eighth Amendment violation), Corizon on lack of municipal liability, and dismissal of Stieve and Aiken for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Dr. Dominguez‑Bem was deliberately indifferent to a serious medical need by rescinding/denying a wrist brace | LaPine: rescission and denial of brace constituted Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference | Dominguez‑Bem: treatment was medical judgment; records show conservative care and brace not indicated | Court: No Eighth Amendment violation; summary judgment for Dominguez‑Bem (plaintiff disagrees with care, at most negligence) |
| Whether Pamella Friess is liable for rescinding wrist‑brace accommodation | LaPine: Friess conspired with Dominguez‑Bem to rescind brace | Friess: same defenses as Dominguez‑Bem; entitled to judgment on same record | Court: Exhaustion arguments limited Friess claims to the brace rescission claim, but on the merits Friess entitled to summary judgment as well |
| Whether Corizon is liable under § 1983 for employees’ actions | LaPine: Corizon had customs/policies causing denial of care | Corizon: no policy/custom showing; not vicariously liable for employees | Court: No municipal liability shown; summary judgment for Corizon |
| Whether claims against Stieve and Aiken are barred for failure to exhaust administrative remedies | LaPine: asserts grievances; argues some grievances were altered or improperly rejected | Stieve/Aiken: plaintiff did not properly exhaust MDOC grievance process as to them | Court: Plaintiff failed to exhaust against Stieve and Aiken; claims dismissed for failure to exhaust |
Key Cases Cited
- Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994) (deliberate indifference standard requires subjective awareness of risk)
- Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976) (Eighth Amendment protects against deliberate indifference to serious medical needs)
- Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81 (2006) (PLRA requires proper exhaustion under prison procedural rules)
- Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (2007) (failure to exhaust is an affirmative defense under PLRA)
- Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978) (municipal liability requires a policy or custom causing the violation)
- Minadeo v. ICI Paints, 398 F.3d 751 (6th Cir. 2005) (summary judgment burden where respondent has no evidence)
- Amini v. Oberlin College, 440 F.3d 350 (6th Cir. 2006) (nonmoving party must identify specific facts to create a genuine issue)
- Williams v. Mehra, 186 F.3d 685 (6th Cir. 1999) (medical malpractice or disagreement with treatment not an Eighth Amendment violation)
- Burgess v. Fischer, 735 F.3d 462 (6th Cir. 2013) (elements for municipal liability under § 1983)