Macleod v. Grajales
6:13-cv-00188
E.D. Ky.Feb 13, 2015Background
- Plaintiff Keith Shane Macleod, a federal inmate, filed a pro se Bivens action alleging Eighth and Fifth Amendment violations based on medical care received while confined at USP–McCreary and other BOP facilities (filed Sept. 2013).
- The district court screened the complaint, dismissed multiple defendants, and allowed Eighth Amendment individual-capacity Bivens claims to proceed against Dr. Jorge Vazquez Velazquez (Regional Physician-Clinical Consultant) and Dr. Jude Onuoha (Clinical Director).
- Defendants moved to dismiss or for summary judgment, submitting sworn declarations and extensive medical records showing diagnostics, referrals, conservative treatments, and that Macleod received cervical fusion surgery in May 2013.
- Key factual disputes included: timing/authorization of cervical surgery, withholding/termination of narcotic pain meds after documented medication hoarding and disciplinary findings, and diagnosis/treatment of an ankle injury (X‑rays, MRIs, brace, steroids, NSAIDs).
- Macleod failed to timely respond to the summary judgment motion and his request for additional time was denied after the court found material misrepresentations about his access to legal materials.
- The court evaluated whether the undisputed record showed deliberate indifference under the Eighth Amendment and granted summary judgment for the defendants, dismissing the action.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Deliberate indifference re: cervical and lumbar spine care | Macleod: defendants delayed/denied necessary cervical fusion and later refused additional surgery causing deterioration | Defendants: provided prompt, repeated evaluations, updated MRIs, specialist referrals, and performed cervical fusion in May 2013; no objective indication for further surgery | Court: No subjective deliberate indifference; treatment and referrals were timely and appropriate; claim fails |
| Withholding/termination of narcotic pain medication | Macleod: defendants improperly denied narcotics for back, neck, and ankle pain | Defendants: discontinued narcotics after documented hoarding/abuse, lack of objective findings, and observations of physical activity; used reasonable medical judgment and conservative alternatives | Court: Withholding narcotics was reasonable medical judgment given abuse history; not deliberate indifference |
| Ankle treatment and alleged need for surgery | Macleod: ankle required surgery and stronger pain meds, which Onuoha denied | Defendants: X‑rays and later MRI showed no fracture; conservative care (brace, NSAIDs, steroid) was medically appropriate; no surgical recommendation from specialists | Court: Conservative management appropriate; no Eighth Amendment violation |
| Qualified immunity (if constitutional violation shown) | N/A (Plaintiff sought relief) | Defendants argued qualified immunity as alternative defense | Court: Did not reach qualified immunity because no constitutional violation was found |
Key Cases Cited
- Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976) (deliberate indifference standard for Eighth Amendment medical claims)
- Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) (implied damages remedy against federal officers for constitutional violations)
- Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994) (objective and subjective components of Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (summary judgment and genuine issue standard)
- Comstock v. McCrary, 273 F.3d 693 (6th Cir. 2001) (applying Farmer and deliberate indifference elements)
- Westlake v. Lucas, 537 F.2d 857 (6th Cir. 1976) (difference of opinion in treatment not Eighth Amendment violation)
- Brooks v. Celeste, 39 F.3d 125 (6th Cir. 1994) (ongoing responsive medical treatment undermines deliberate indifference claim)