Summary
noting "a prisoner does not have the right to be seen by a specialist, even if a prison doctor recommends that course of action," and dismissing plaintiff's deliberate indifference claims where he never obtained a specialist referral and simply disagreed with the treatment provided
Summary of this case from Rogers v. CochranOpinion
No. 4:08CV91-P-A.
August 20, 2008
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter comes before the court on the pro se prisoner complaint of Floyd Robinson, who challenges the conditions of his confinement under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. For the purposes of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, the court notes that the plaintiff was incarcerated when he filed this suit. For the reasons set forth below, the instant case shall be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
Factual Allegations
The plaintiff had surgery on November 30, 2007, to incise and drain a boil on his buttock. He was treated afterwards with antibiotic, but the surgery site remained painful. He had a follow-up visit with a prison doctor after the surgery. The plaintiff seeks referral to a medical specialist for further treatment.
Denial of Medical Treatment
In order to prevail on an Eighth Amendment claim for denial of medical care, a plaintiff must allege facts which demonstrate "deliberate indifference to the serious medical needs of prisoners [which] constitutes `unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain' proscribed by the Eighth Amendment . . . whether the indifference is manifested by prison doctors or prison guards in intentionally denying or delaying access to medical care. . . ." Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104-105, 50 L. Ed. 2d 251, 260 (1976); Mayweather v. Foti, 958 F.2d 91, 91 (5th Cir. 1992). The test for establishing deliberate indifference is one of "subjective recklessness as used in the criminal law." Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994). Under this standard, a state actor may not be held liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless plaintiff alleges facts which, if true, would establish that the official "knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or safety; the official must both be aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists, and he must also draw the inference." Id. at 838. Only in exceptional circumstances may knowledge of substantial risk of serious harm be inferred by a court from the obviousness of the substantial risk. Id. Negligent conduct by prison officials does not rise to the level of a constitutional violation. Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 106 S.Ct. 662 (1986), Davidson v. Cannon, 474 U.S. 344, 106 S.Ct. 668 (1986). A prisoner's mere disagreement with medical treatment provided by prison officials does not state a claim against the prison for violation of the Eighth Amendment by deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. Gibbs v. Grimmette, 254 F.3d 545 (5th Cir. 2001), Norton v. Dimazana, 122 F.3d 286, 292 (5th Cir. 1997).
The plaintiff in the present case simply disagrees with the medical treatment provided by prison doctors (administration of antibiotics) after the boil on his buttocks was lanced and drained. As discussed above, such disagreement does not rise to the level of a constitutional violation. In addition, a prisoner does not have the right to be seen by a specialist, even if a prison doctor recommends that course of action. Alfred v. Texas Dept. of Criminal Justice, 80 Fed.Appx. 926 (5th Cir. 2003) (unpublished). In this case, a doctor has not even recommended a specialist. As such, all of the plaintiff's claims shall be dismissed for failure to state a constitutional claim. A final judgment consistent with this memorandum opinion shall issue today.