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

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 vs. ValueOptions, Inc., et al., Defendants. Shannon M ichael Clark, Plaintiff, IN THE UNITED S TATES DIS TRICT COURT FOR THE DIS TRICT OF ARIZONA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. CV 03-1344-PHX-EHC (HCE) ORDER

BL

Plaintiff Shannon M ichael Clark has filed a pro se civil rights act ion pursuant to 42 14 U.S.C. § 1983. 15 Judgment, and P laintiff's (1) M otion for Summary Judgment, (2) M otion for M iscellaneous 16 Relief, and (3) M otion to Stay Summary Judgment Proceedings and to Supplement the 17 18 M otion for Summary Judgment, deny Plaint iff's motions, and dismiss with prejudice 19 Defendant ValueOptions. 20 I. Background 21 A. S econd Amended Complaint 22 Plaintiff filed this cas e against ValueOptions, Inc., Karen M arshall, and Dr. Thomas 23 Crumbley (Doc. #53). In a Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleged that (1) Defendant 24 M arshall was deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff's mental health needs in 25 documents for Plaintiff to receive ment al health services following his release from prison; 26 27 28 Defendants Karen M arshall and Dr. Thomas Crumbley were only recently served with the action and have not joined in Defendant ValueOptions' M otion for Summary Judgment.
1

Before the Court are D efendant ValueOptions' M otion for Summary

Record (Docs. ## 135, 141, 241, 246).1

The Court will grant Defendant ValueOpt ions '

preparing

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

Document 257

Filed 09/15/2006

Page 1 of 6

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

(2) Defendant Crumbley was deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff's mental health needs in determining that Plaintiff did not meet the criteria for receiving mental health services following his release from prison; and (3) Defendant ValueOptions was deliberat ely indifferent to Plaintiff's mental health needs for failing to stop Defendant M arshall and Crumbley's conduct (Doc. #53). Plaint iff also alleged that Defendants Crumbley and

M arshall committed state law medical malpractice (Id.).2 B. Factual History Plaintiff has a history of mental illness, including suicide attempts, self-mutilation, severe mood swings and irrational behavior (D oc. #53). Plaintiff was diagnosed with in a

bipolar disorder (severe and mixed), polysubstance dependence (full remission controlled environment), antisocial personality disorder, and

borderline personality

disorder (Doc. #62, ex. 2).

When on the street, Plaintiff often self-medicated with illegal

drugs (D oc. #62, ex. 4). As a result of Plaintiff's self-medication and conviction for a drug offense, he was incarcerated by the Arizona Department of Corrections (A D O C) in August 2002. Prior t o Plaintiff's release from ADOC custody on September 1, 2002, Defendant Defendant M arshall

ValueOptions, Inc. conducted a mental health evaluation on Plaintiff.

completed an Adult Intake Assessment of P laintiff on August 22, 2002 (Doc. #53; Doc. #58, ex.1). Several days later, Defendant Crumbley reviewed the assessment and determined

that Plaintiff did not qualify for the state Seriously M entally Ill (SM I) program, which provides for case management, housing support, crisis intervention, psychiatric residential treatment, behavioral health programs, and prevention services (Id.). Plaintiff was released from ADOC custody on September 1, 2002, with only 10 days of psychiatric medications (Doc. #53). On September 8, 2002, Plaintiff contact ed D efendant ValueOptions s eeking a refill (Doc. #53). An appointment was scheduled, but in the interim Plaintiff began to self-medicate and in order to pay for the street drugs, he committed

Plaintiff also alleged that his First Amendment right to access the courts was denied (Doc. #53). That claim was dismissed (Doc. #59).
2

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

-2Document 257 Filed 09/15/2006

Page 2 of 6

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

burglaries, and was again p laced into ADOC custody on two counts of second degree burglary. C. Procedural History Defendant ValueOptions filed a motion for summary judgment arguing, inter alia, that Plaintiff was properly assessed and found ineligible for treatment (Doc. #57). Defendant submitted a one-page affidavit by Robert Walters, Ph.D. (Doc. #58, ex. 1). Dr. Walters opined that after reviewing Plaintiff's records, the determination that Plaintiff was not eligible for SM I s ervices was an appropriate decision (Id. ¶5). summary judgment (Doc. #121). The Court denied

Defendant ValueOptions filed a Second M otion for

Summary Judgment, arguing that Plaintiff did not demonstrate the existence of a policy, practice, or custom on the behalf of Defendant ValueOptions which caused Plaintiff's injuries (Doc. #135). Further, Plaintiff failed to link any conduct with an injury resulting

from an alleged violation of federal law (Id.). Plaintiff responded and filed a M otion for Summary Judgment (Doc. #141). Plaintiff filed various exhibits in order to demonstrate that ValueOptions had a custom of deny ing individuals' treatment. T he exhibits included evidence that Defendant ValueOptions (1)

has been fined for failing to provide proper care for its clients (Doc. #121, ex. A), (2) has entered into stipulations regarding its imp rop er t reatment of clients (Doc. #172, exs. K, L; Doc. #223), and (3) has received numerous complaints regarding the denial of proper treatment which result ed in significant injury to the client or the general public (Docs. ##201, 202). III. Motion for S ummary Judgment "Under Rule 56(c), summary judgment is proper `if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine is s ue as t o any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.'" Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U .S. 317, 322-23 (1986). " [T ]he plain language of Rule 56(c) mandates the entry of summary judgment, after

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

-3Document 257 Filed 09/15/2006

Page 3 of 6

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

adequate time for discovery and upon motion, against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the exist ence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial." Id. "Deliberat e indifference to a prisoner's serious medical [and mental] needs violates the Eight Amendment's proscription against cruel and unusual punishment" Long v. County of Los Angeles, 442 F.3d 1178, 1185 (9th Cir. 2006). A pretrial detainee has a similar right under the Fourteenth Amendment, i.e. a pretrial det ainee has the right to the "minimal civilized measure of life's necessities," which includes medical treatment. Fros t v. Agnos, 152 F.3d 1124, 1128 (9th Cir. 1998). "Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983 provides a cause of action for the `dep rivat ion of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws' of the U nites States. To

st at e a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege: . . . (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the U nited States was violated, and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of State law ." Long, 442 F.3d at 1185.

In particular, a plaintiff mus t allege t hat he suffered specific injury as a result of the specific conduct of a defendant, and show an affirmative link between the injury and the conduct of the defendant. Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 371-72, 377 (1976). Prior to his release, Plaintiff was evaluated in order to determine w het her he qualified for mental health treatment; Defendant Crumbley determined that Plaintiff was not so ent itled. However, this determination did not affect the treatment Plaintiff received during his confinement. While in pris on, P laintiff has a constitutional right not to be subjected

to deliberate indifference to his medical needs . See Long, 442 F.3d at 1185; Frost, 152 F.3d at 1128. Plaintiff, however, does not have the same cons t itutional right once he is released. Plaintiff has not alleged, much less demons t rated that the failure to designate him SM I 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

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

-4Document 257 Filed 09/15/2006

Page 4 of 6

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

as a result of ValueOptions denying him a federally protected right. ValueOptions is thus entitled to summary judgment, and will be dis missed with prejudice from this action. Further, Plaintiff's M otion for Summary Judgment will be denied. IV. Pending Motions Plaintiff has also filed a M otion for M iscellaneous Relief, claiming that ADOC is impeding his attempts at prosecuting this case because A D O C (1) does not consider his witnesses "legal" and thus reads all correspondence,3 (2) does not allow him and his witnesses privacy during visitation, (3) does not allow him to exchange documentation with his wit nes s es , (4) requires him to call his witnesses collect, and (5) has not provided him with "qualified legal claim copying in a reasonably timely manner" (D oc. #241). Plaintiff does not state what relief he seeks . ADOC. Regardless, he is not entitled to relief against

Injunctive or restraining orders are "binding only upon the parties to the action,

their officers, agents, servants, employees, and at t orney s, and upon those persons in active concert or participation with them who receive actual notice of the order." Fed.R.Civ.P. 65(d). Plaintiff's motion will be denied. Plaint iff also filed a M otion to Stay Summary Judgment Proceedings and Request for Leave to Supplement his Response (Doc. #246). Plaintiff is currently conducting

discovery as to Defendants M arshall and Crumbley, which he seeks to introduce to controvert Defendant ValueOptions' M otion for Summary Judgment (Id.). This action has been proceeding for more t han three years, Plaintiff has had ample opportunity to conduct discovery, and there is no evidence P laint iff can introduce that would affect the decision of this Court. Accordingly, his motion will be denied. IT IS ORDERED: (1) The reference to the M agistrate Judge is withdrawn as to Plaint iff's M otion for M iscellaneous Relief (Doc. #241) and M otion to Stay Summary Judgment Proceedings and Leave to Supplement (Doc. #246).

3

Under ADOC policy, legal mail from an inmate's counsel or from the courts is not screened. -5Document 257 Filed 09/15/2006

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

Page 5 of 6

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

(2) Plaintiff's M otion for M iscellaneous Relief (Doc. #241) and M otion to Stay Summary Judgment Proceedings and Leave to Supplement (Doc. #246) are denied. (3) D efendant ValueOptions' M otion for Summary Judgment (Doc. #135) is granted. Defendant ValueOptions is dismissed with prejudice. (4) Plaintiff's M otion for Summary Judgment (Doc. #141) is denied. DATED this 14th day of September, 2006.

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

-6Document 257 Filed 09/15/2006

Page 6 of 6