Tony Jackson v. Riebold
815 F.3d 1114
| 8th Cir. | 2016Background
- Plaintiff Tony Lanier Jackson, an inmate with end-stage renal disease who required dialysis via a right-arm arteriovenous (AV) fistula, sued Nursing Supervisor Shannon Riebold under Bivens for Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference after the fistula developed a pseudoaneurysm and later ruptured on June 28, 2012.
- Prior to the rupture, a PA-C (Douglas) evaluated the enlarged area, ordered ultrasound and mapping, and advised Jackson to report any bleeding; the ultrasound/mapping were completed June 19 and results received June 25 with recommendation for surgical revision.
- On June 28, Jackson’s pseudoaneurysm ruptured at night; inmate witnesses gave differing timelines about Riebold’s arrival, brief examination, departure, and return; BOP records show a medical emergency announcement at 10:30 p.m. and ambulance transport leaving by 11:28 p.m.; Jackson underwent successful emergency surgery at an outside hospital.
- Riebold moved for summary judgment asserting sovereign immunity (as to official-capacity claims), absence of a constitutional violation, and qualified immunity; Jackson sought additional discovery (video surveillance) and moved to amend to add a deliberate-indifference claim against Douglas.
- The district court denied Jackson’s request for additional discovery (finding no preserved video existed), denied leave to amend as futile (claims duplicative and untimely), and granted summary judgment for Riebold, finding no evidence the delay caused harm and that Riebold acted promptly; the Eighth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Riebold was deliberately indifferent to a serious medical need (delay in care after AV fistula rupture) | Jackson: Riebold delayed and failed to provide or summon timely care, creating a triable issue of fact | Riebold: Records show prompt response, assessment, and ambulance call; no constitutional violation; qualified immunity | Court: No genuine dispute of material fact that delay caused harm; Jackson produced no verifying medical evidence of detrimental effect; summary judgment affirmed |
| Whether plaintiff was entitled to additional discovery (Rule 56(d)) for video evidence | Jackson: Needed video to contradict Riebold’s account and defeat summary judgment | Riebold: No relevant video exists; SIA declaration establishes absence; discovery unnecessary | Court: Jackson failed to show sought facts exist or identify specific evidence; denial of discovery proper |
| Whether leave to amend to add deliberate-indifference claim against Douglas should be granted | Jackson: Proposed amendment would state claim that Douglas failed to perform revision surgery or arrange outside referral | Riebold: Amendment is duplicative, untimely, and an attempt to avoid summary judgment | Court: Amendment futile (duplicative and attempt to add new party/claim on eve of summary judgment); denial affirmed |
| Whether sovereign/qualified immunity bar claims | Jackson: Contends individual-capacity claims were adequately pleaded (or clarified in proposed amendment) | Riebold: Official-capacity claims barred by sovereign immunity; in any event qualified immunity protects him | Court: District court correctly dismissed official-capacity claims; even assuming individual-capacity, no clearly established violation shown — qualified immunity applied |
Key Cases Cited
- Laughlin v. Schriro, 430 F.3d 927 (8th Cir. 2005) (summary judgment standard and standard of review)
- Beyerbach v. Sears, 49 F.3d 1324 (8th Cir. 1995) (elements of Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim)
- Crowley v. Hedgepeth, 109 F.3d 500 (8th Cir. 1997) (verifying medical evidence required to show detrimental effect of delay)
- Dulany v. Carnahan, 132 F.3d 1234 (8th Cir. 1998) (delay in treatment claim requires evidence of detrimental effect)
- Coleman v. Rahija, 114 F.3d 778 (8th Cir. 1997) (layperson-obvious medical need still requires verifying medical evidence of harm)
- Gibson v. Weber, 433 F.3d 642 (8th Cir. 2006) (medical evidence needed to avoid summary judgment on delay claim)
- Toben v. Bridgestone Retail Operations, LLC, 751 F.3d 888 (8th Cir. 2014) (Rule 56(d) standards for seeking discovery to oppose summary judgment)
- Crest Constr. II, Inc. v. Doe, 660 F.3d 346 (8th Cir. 2011) (standard of review for denial of leave to amend when court finds futility)
- Reuter v. Jax Ltd., 711 F.3d 918 (8th Cir. 2013) (duplicative or frivolous amendments are futile)