Mitchell v. State of Washington
3:15-cv-05226
| W.D. Wash. | May 19, 2016Background
- Plaintiff George O. Mitchell is a civilly committed sexually violent predator (SVP) housed at Washington State Special Commitment Center (SCC) who has chronic Hepatitis C and was treated with interferon and ribavirin beginning before 2012.
- Plaintiff alleges he should have been on a triple-therapy Hepatitis C regimen (including telaprevir) and that some SCC staff altered, delayed, or halted his treatment for cost or other reasons.
- Defendant Galina Dixon, an APRN, began working at SCC around late 2012/early 2013 and on two occasions (January 2013 and July 2013) communicated to Plaintiff that treatment decisions (including follow-ups and fitness requirements) were ordered by Dr. Priebe or others.
- Plaintiff’s complaint asserts Dixon denied or delayed adequate medical care and participated in or implemented policies that interfered with his treatment; he also alleges denial of a grievance process.
- Dixon moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; the magistrate judge analyzes the claims under the Fourteenth Amendment (Youngberg) and Eighth Amendment principles (deliberate indifference) and recommends dismissal with leave to amend.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Dixon was deliberately indifferent to serious medical needs under Eighth/Fourteenth Amendment standards | Mitchell alleges Dixon denied, delayed, or prevented proper Hep C treatment and failed to follow Dr. Priebe's orders | Dixon contends Mitchell fails to plead facts showing she knew of and disregarded a substantial risk or caused the treatment delay; decisions were by others or before her employment | Dismissed: allegations are conclusory; Plaintiff pleaded a serious medical need but not that Dixon personally acted with deliberate indifference or caused harm |
| Whether Dixon’s actions amounted to a substantial departure from professional judgment (Youngberg) | Mitchell argues Dixon’s conduct violated professional standards and applicable nursing statutes/regulations | Dixon argues medical decisions by professionals are presumptively valid and Plaintiff pleads disagreement, not a substantial departure from accepted practice | Dismissed: facts show at most a difference of medical opinion or negligence, not the substantial departure required under Youngberg |
| Whether respondeat superior or policy liability supports § 1983 claim against Dixon | Mitchell alleges Dixon is liable vicariously or for promulgating cost-saving policies that interfered with care | Dixon notes § 1983 does not permit vicarious liability; Plaintiff does not identify specific policies Dixon enacted | Dismissed: respondeat superior/inference of a policy without factual specifics insufficient to state a § 1983 claim |
| Whether denial of grievance process states an Equal Protection claim | Mitchell alleges inability to file grievances amounts to unequal treatment | Dixon notes there is no constitutional right to any specific grievance procedure and Mitchell does not allege Dixon’s involvement | Dismissed: no plausible allegation of intentional discrimination by Dixon and no protected right to a particular grievance process |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (Plaintiff must plead facts showing claim plausible on its face)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (Conclusions unsupported by factual allegations insufficient to survive Rule 12(b)(6))
- Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307 (Fourteenth Amendment protects civilly committed patients; liability only for substantial departure from accepted professional judgment)
- Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (Deliberate indifference to serious medical needs is unconstitutional; negligence alone insufficient)
- Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (Deliberate indifference requires subjective knowledge of and disregard of substantial risk)
- McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050 (Elements of a prisoner Eighth Amendment medical claim and what constitutes serious medical need)
- Jackson v. McIntosh, 90 F.3d 330 (Difference of medical opinion does not establish deliberate indifference)
- Ammons v. Washington Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs., 648 F.3d 1020 (Youngberg standard applied to SVPs; professional judgment governs challenges to treatment)
- Monell v. Dep't of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (Municipal liability under § 1983 cannot be based on respondeat superior)