Vreeland v. Fisher
682 F. App'x 642
| 10th Cir. | 2017Background
- Vreeland, a pro se prisoner, sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law alleging denial of medical care at Douglas County Jail (2004–2008) and later at a CDOC facility after transfer in 2008; central alleged harm arose from a circulated letter accusing him of malingering and from post-appendectomy care in 2012.
- He alleged Douglas Defendants circulated a Letter labeling him a malingerer which led to denial of care; Dr. Fisher (CDOC) received a copy and also denied treatment; Dr. Johnson and HRRMC provided the appendectomy in Feb 2012.
- Post-surgery, Vreeland asserts CDOC providers (including Dr. Fisher) failed to treat complications and an ongoing infection, denied bandages and adequate pain medication, and impeded his ability to obtain a private expert.
- District court dismissed many claims as time-barred or for failure to state a claim, denied several of Vreeland’s non-dispositive motions (appointment of expert, motions to compel, extensions), and granted summary judgment to Dr. Fisher on the remaining Eighth Amendment claims concerning post-operative care.
- On appeal, Vreeland challenged the statute-of-limitations dismissals, denial to amend, denial of non-dispositive relief, and the grant of summary judgment; the Tenth Circuit affirmed in all respects.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of claims against Douglas Defendants | Letter caused continuing injury and thus tolls limitations | Claims accrued by Oct 2008; suit filed 2013; limitations bar applies | Timeliness: claims time-barred; continuing-violation inapplicable to lingering effects |
| Timeliness of claims against Dr. Fisher | Each denial of care restarts limitations; some denials occurred within limitations | Many alleged injuries occurred >2 years before filing; surviving claims limited to events within two years | Court dismissed claims outside two-year window; affirmed district court’s scope |
| Eighth Amendment claim vs Dr. Johnson | Dr. Johnson was a state actor and liable for deliberate indifference | Dr. Johnson lacked power to force CDOC to refer back to HRRMC; no plausible facts alleging indifference by state actor | Dismissed for failure to state a claim; affirmed |
| Appointment of independent expert | CDOC impeded his ability to retain private expert; court should appoint one | Vreeland identified no expert or specific showing to justify court-appointed expert | Denial not an abuse of discretion; affirmed |
| Denial of discovery/time extensions/Rule 56(d) relief | Needed more time and discovery to oppose Fisher’s summary judgment | Motions were procedurally deficient, lacked specifics, and Vreeland received prior extensions | Denials not an abuse of discretion; affirmed |
| Summary judgment on post-operative care (infection, pain, bandages, weight loss) | Dr. Fisher was deliberately indifferent to infection, pain, and complications | Medical records, labs, and expert evidence show no ongoing infection; he received ibuprofen and bandages; no serious harm shown | Summary judgment for Fisher affirmed: no genuine dispute of material fact on deliberate indifference |
Key Cases Cited
- Alexander v. Oklahoma, 382 F.3d 1206 (10th Cir. 2004) (standards for reviewing Rule 12(b)(6) and summary judgment)
- Cohen v. Longshore, 621 F.3d 1311 (10th Cir. 2010) (denial of leave to amend reviewed de novo when amendment would be futile)
- Workman v. Jordan, 32 F.3d 475 (10th Cir. 1994) (§ 1983 claims borrow state limitations period; accrual rule)
- Dummar v. Lummis, 543 F.3d 614 (10th Cir. 2008) (claims may be dismissed as time-barred when facially apparent)
- Mata v. Anderson, 635 F.3d 1250 (10th Cir. 2011) (continuing-violation doctrine requires continuing unlawful acts, not lingering effects)
- Sealock v. Colorado, 218 F.3d 1205 (10th Cir. 2000) (objective and subjective components of deliberate-indifference medical claim)
- Self v. Crum, 439 F.3d 1227 (10th Cir. 2006) (choice of pain medication does not by itself show subjective deliberate indifference)
- Rachel v. Troutt, 820 F.3d 390 (10th Cir. 2016) (standards for appointment of court-appointed experts in civil cases)
- One Parcel of Real Prop., 73 F.3d 1057 (10th Cir. 1996) (firm waiver rule for failure to object to magistrate judge recommendations)
- Marshall v. Chater, 75 F.3d 1421 (10th Cir. 1996) (courts may decline to consider late-filed evidence on summary judgment)