Rascon v. Douglas, 718 F. App’x 587

Plaintiff Joseph Rascón, a New Mexico inmate with arthritis and degenerative bone disease, had been prescribed morphine pre-surgery; he refused scheduled bilateral hip-replacement surgery and morphine was discontinued.
After refusal, Corizon medical staff placed Rascón in a medical-observation cell to monitor morphine withdrawal and provided non-narcotic medications; he alleged the substitute drugs were ineffective and he spent four nights on a steel slab without a mattress.
Rascón sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for Eighth Amendment cruel-and-unusual-punishment and retaliation claims; he named Corizon and several individual defendants.
The district court dismissed many defendants for failure to state a claim, ordered a Martinez report from three Corizon employees (Dr. Staber, PA Bixenman, and HSA Douglas), then granted summary judgment for those three.
On appeal the Tenth Circuit affirmed: (1) Corizon was properly dismissed because vicarious liability is not available under § 1983; (2) no genuine dispute of material fact as to deliberate indifference in discontinuing morphine; (3) no clearly established law supporting an Eighth Amendment violation for the short mattress deprivation, so qualified immunity applied; (4) retaliation claim failed for lack of but-for causal proof.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Vicarious liability for Corizon	Corizon is liable for its employees' actions	Vicarious liability not available under § 1983	Dismissal affirmed — § 1983 bars respondeat superior (Iqbal)
Discontinuation of morphine — Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference	Withdrawing morphine and substituting meds caused serious pain and risk, showing deliberate indifference	Decision was a medical judgment to avoid long-term narcotics and manage withdrawal; staff monitored and treated symptoms	Summary judgment for defendants — plaintiff failed to show subjective deliberate indifference; disagreement between doctors insufficient
Conditions of confinement — lack of mattress for four nights	Sleeping on steel slab without mattress amid withdrawal constituted unconstitutional conditions	Short, temporary lack of mattress under these facts not clearly unlawful; no controlling precedent showing Eighth Amendment violation	Summary judgment for defendants — no established law showing the mattress deprivation met objective standard; qualified immunity applies
Retaliation for refusing surgery	Morphine was withdrawn and mattress withheld in retaliation for refusing surgery	Medical judgment motivated withdrawal regardless of surgery refusal; no evidence of but-for causation or authority to withhold mattress	Summary judgment for defendants — plaintiff failed to prove retaliatory "but-for" causation

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (disallows vicarious liability under § 1983 and sets pleading standard)
Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976) (Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference is the standard for medical claims)
Martinez v. Aaron, 570 F.2d 317 (10th Cir. 1978) (procedures for district court to develop record in pro se prison cases)
Mata v. Saiz, 427 F.3d 745 (10th Cir. 2005) (deliberate indifference requires objective and subjective components)
Sealock v. Colorado, 218 F.3d 1205 (10th Cir. 2000) (two ways to show subjective deliberate indifference in prison medical cases)