Valdes v. Evans
5:19-cv-00004
| W.D. Ky. | Aug 14, 2020Background
- Plaintiff Felix Valdes, a jail inmate, underwent hernia/testicle surgery on Nov. 27, 2017; he alleges surgical errors and ongoing severe groin/pelvic pain and bruising.
- After discharge to Christian County Jail (CCJ) he alleges inadequate post‑op care and that nurse Lindsay Harper repeatedly refused proper medication and gave him an English "Patient Privacy Notification Form" though he does not read English.
- The district court previously allowed an Eighth Amendment deliberate‑indifference claim against Harper and state‑law malpractice claims against Harper, Evans, and Wells; claims against Evans and Wells were later dismissed.
- Harper moved for summary judgment; Valdes (pro se) did not file a response, failed to respond to discovery, and did not provide expert medical testimony.
- The court granted summary judgment for Harper on multiple independent grounds: (1) failure to produce expert evidence for malpractice and for proving the objective component of deliberate indifference, (2) failure to exhaust CCJ administrative remedies, and (3) failure to comply with a court order to file a pretrial memorandum.
- The court declined to deem discovery requests admitted despite Valdes’s nonresponse but found the CCJ grievance file contained no grievance related to this incident.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Need for expert on medical malpractice | Valdes alleges surgical/negligent care caused lasting injury | Harper: Valdes failed to produce expert to establish standard of care/causation | Malpractice claim dismissed for lack of expert proof |
| Expert proof for Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference | Valdes claims denial of proper medication and ongoing harm | Harper: plaintiff must show medical proof that inadequate care caused serious condition; no expert produced | Deliberate‑indifference claim dismissed for failure to produce required medical proof |
| PLRA exhaustion of administrative remedies | Valdes asserts he sought care/grievances (implicit) | Harper: CCJ grievance procedure not followed; only unrelated grievance in file | Claims dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies |
| Failure to comply with court order | Valdes did not file required pretrial memorandum | Harper: noncompliance justifies dismissal under Rule 41(b) | Dismissal warranted for failure to comply with court order |
Key Cases Cited
- Matshushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (1986) (summary judgment standard; draw inferences against movant)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (plaintiff must present more than a scintilla of evidence to survive summary judgment)
- Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (2007) (PLRA exhaustion is mandatory)
- Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81 (2006) (proper exhaustion requires compliance with an agency's procedural rules)
- Napier v. Laurel Cty. Ky., 636 F.3d 218 (6th Cir. 2011) (failure to exhaust is an affirmative defense for defendants to prove)
- Monette v. Electronic Data Sys. Corp., 90 F.3d 1173 (6th Cir. 1996) (genuine factual dispute required to defeat summary judgment)
- Hartsel v. Keys, 87 F.3d 795 (6th Cir. 1996) (plaintiff must present a jury question on each element)
- Street v. J.C. Bradford & Co., 886 F.2d 1472 (6th Cir. 1989) (not every factual disagreement is a genuine issue of material fact)
- Jourdan v. Jabe, 951 F.2d 108 (6th Cir. 1991) (dismissal permissible where plaintiff fails to adhere to clear court deadlines)