Free Motion for Summary Judgment - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

1 2 3 4 5 6

Russell A. Kolsrud, #004578 Brad M. Thies, #021354 N ORLING, K OLSRUD, S IFFERMAN & D AVIS, P.L.C. 16427 N. Scottsdale Road, Suite 210 Scottsdale, Arizona 85254 (480) 505-0015 Attorneys for Defendants IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7 DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 Shannon Michael Clark, 9 Plaintiff, 10 v. 11 ValueOptions, Inc., 12 Defendant. 13 14 Defendants Thomas Crumbley, whose true name is Thomas Nathan Crumbley, M.D. 15 ("Crumbley") and Karen Lynette Marshall ("Marshall") file their Motion for Summary 16 Judgment (the "Motion"). Defendants Marshall and Crumbley assert that, for the same 17 justification contained in this Court
Case 2:03-cv-01344-EHC-HCE

Document 266

Filed 09/27/2006

Page 1 of 4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES On September 14, 2006, this Court entered an Order dismissing ValueOptions from the pending action with prejudice. [Doc. 257]. In granting ValueOptions< Motion for Summary Judgment, this Court recognized, that while Plaintiff has a constitutional right not to be subjected to deliberate indifference while in prison, Plaintiff does not have the same constitutional right once he is released. [ Id. pg. 4]. In dismissing ValueOptions, this Court specifically stated: Plaintiff has not alleged, much less demonstrated that the failure to designate him SMI resulted in deliberate indifference to his medical needs while he was in prison. Plaintiff was allegedly injured as a result of the lack of treatment he received after his release. Accordingly, Plaintiff did not establish an essential element of his case, that he was injured as a result of ValueOptions denying him a federally protected right. [Id. pp. 4 through 5]. This same reasoning can be applied to the undisputed facts as they relate to the deliberate indifference claims against Marshall and Crumbley. It is undisputed that Marshall performed an Adult Intake Assessment of Plaintiff on August 22, 2002. [Id. pg. 2, ln. 16-17]. Several days later, Crumbley reviewed the Adult Intake Assessment and determined that Plaintiff did not qualify for the state Seriously Mentally Ill ("SMI") program. [Id. pg. 2, ln. 18-21]. Following his release on September 1, 2002, Plaintiff contacted ValueOptions seeking a refill of psychiatric medications and scheduled an appointment. [Id. pg. 2, ln. 22-24]. Instead of presenting at the appointment, Plaintiff began to self-medicate with illegal street drugs and, in order to pay for the illegal street drugs, committed burglaries resulting in his return to ADOC custody. [Id. pp. 2-3, ln. 24-2]. Based upon the principle that the Plaintiff was not arguably denied adequate treatment until after his release from prison,1 Marshall and Crumbley did not deny Plaintiff

Though it is irrelevant for purposes of this Motion, Marshall and Crumbley still maintain that the assessment and determination were adequate. 2

1

Case 2:03-cv-01344-EHC-HCE

Document 266

Filed 09/27/2006

Page 2 of 4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

any federally protected right even though the assessment performed by Marshall and the determination made by Crumbley occurred prior to his release. Just as this Court

determined ValueOptions was entitled to dismissal because the alleged injury occurred after Plaintiff's release from prison, Marshall's assessment and Crumbley's determination did not affect the treatment Plaintiff received during his confinement entitling them to dismissal as well. Plaintiff simply will not be able to offer any evidence that the assessment and determination affected the treatment Plaintiff received during his confinement. Defendants Marshall and Crumbley are entitled to entry of summary judgment and dismissal with prejudice of Plaintiff's claims of medical deliberate indifference. Dismissal of Plaintiff
3

Case 2:03-cv-01344-EHC-HCE

Document 266

Filed 09/27/2006

Page 3 of 4

1 2 3 4

DATED this 27 th day of September, 2006. NORLING, KOLSRUD, SIFFERMAN & DAVIS, P.L.C.

By: 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4 /s/ Pam Whitmore Shannon M. Clark #113372 ASPC-Tucson-Santa Rita P.O. Box 24406 Tucson, Arizona 85734-4406 Plaintiff pro per The Honorable Hector C. Estrada United States District Court 405 West Congress Street Tucson, AZ 85701 Copy of the foregoing mailed this 27 th day of September, 2006, to: Original of the foregoing e-filed with the Clerk this 27 th day of September, 2006, and Copy hand-delivered this 27 th day of September, 2006, to: The Honorable Earl H. Carroll United States District Court 401 West Washington Street Phoenix, AZ 85003

/s/ Brad M. Thies Russell A. Kolsrud Brad M. Thies Attorneys for Defendants

Case 2:03-cv-01344-EHC-HCE

Document 266

Filed 09/27/2006

Page 4 of 4