Phillips v. Tiona, 508 F. App'x 737

Phillips, a state prisoner, sued CCA and KCCC staff under §1983, ADA Titles II/III, and §504 alleging deliberate indifference to medical needs and inadequate accommodations.
He fractured his right distal fibula in August 2009; underwent surgery the next day with syndesmotic screw and two plates; follow-up care occurred at El Paso Jail and then KCCC.
During two months at KCCC, Phillips pressed to have the syndesmotic screw removed; x-rays showed well-healed fracture and hardware in place, but doctors at KCCC did not remove the screw.
Phillips was transferred to SCF in December 2009; screw removal occurred January 13, 2010 after continued complaints, with ongoing pain thereafter and eventual additional surgery in April 2010 for unrelated issues.
At KCCC he also protested lack of wheelchair and inaccessible shower facilities; records show Tylenol/Ibuprofen used for pain; Neurontin was denied.
District court dismissed Eighth Amendment claim against Warden Brill and CCA and §504 claim; summary judgment later granted on remaining claims, which this court affirms.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Phillips state a deliberate indifference claim under the Eighth Amendment against Tiona/Gray	Phillips contends delay/omission caused permanent harm and pain.	Disagreement with medical treatment is not deliberate indifference; actions were medical decisions.	No deliberate indifference; no culpable state of mind; affirmed summary judgment for Tiona/Gray.
Whether Title II ADA claims lie against CCA as a private prison operator	CCA operates KCCC under contract and should be treated as a public entity for Title II.	Private prisons are not instrumentalities of the state under Title II; no public-entity status.	Title II does not apply to CCA; district court's dismissal affirmed.
Whether Phillips's Title III ADA claims were properly dismissed for lack of injunctive relief	Requests for ADA-based relief and accommodations were ongoing and deserve relief.	Title III remedies are injunctive; Phillips sought past violations, not ongoing relief.	Proper to dismiss Title III claims; no ongoing injunctive remedy in record.
Whether Warden Brill can be held liable under supervisory theory	Brill personally participated and denied accommodations.	Grievances and responses show reliance on medical staff; insufficient participation.	No supervisory liability; Brill not personally involved in alleged deliberate indifference.

Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (U.S. 1976) (Eighth Amendment standard requires deliberate indifference)
Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (U.S. 1994) (objective/subjective components of deliberate indifference)
Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294 (U.S. 1991) (state-of-mind requirement for Eighth Amendment claims)
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (supervisory liability and plausibility pleading standard)
Dodds v. Richardson, 614 F.3d 1185 (10th Cir. 2010) (Iqbal's impact on supervisory liability)
Green v. New York, 465 F.3d 65 (2d Cir. 2006) (private entity not an instrumentality of state under Title II; noscitur a sociis)
Edison v. Douberly, 604 F.3d 1307 (11th Cir. 2010) (private prison contractor not a public entity under Title II)
Minter v. Minneci, 132 S. Ct. 617 (2012) (private prison contractors and FTCA/alternate remedies framework)
Minneci v. Pollard, 132 S. Ct. 617 (U.S. 2012) (private prison contractor not federal agent; tort rememdies)