Ray Anthony Chaney v. United States , 658 F. App'x 984 ( 2016 )

Case: 15-15052 Date Filed: 09/29/2016 Page: 1 of 16
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 15-15052
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:13-cv-03025-MHS
RAY ANTHONY CHANEY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
________________________
(September 29, 2016)
Case: 15-15052 Date Filed: 09/29/2016 Page: 2 of 16
Before HULL, MARCUS and JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Federal inmate Ray Chaney, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s
grant of summary judgment to the United States on his claims arising out of (1) the
government’s failure to operate on his injured finger and (2) further injuries he
suffered after falling while exiting a prison transport van. After careful
consideration, we affirm the district court’s judgment because Mr. Chaney failed to
come forward with sufficient evidence to survive summary judgment on any of his
claims.
I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Mr. Chaney is an inmate at the United States Penitentiary in Atlanta,
Georgia.1 Before his incarceration, Mr. Chaney injured his left hand in an
automobile accident. Although Mr. Chaney had an operation on his hand shortly
after the accident, he developed a Dupuytren contracture, which caused his left
fifth finger to be set in a position where it bent toward the palm at a 90 degree
angle. Because of the Dupuytren contracture, Mr. Chaney has almost no mobility
in his finger and has experienced constant pain. While in prison, the condition of
Mr. Chaney’s finger worsened when he reinjured it while working out.
1
Because Mr. Chaney’s appeals the district court’s summary judgment ruling in favor of
the United States, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to him, the non-movant. See
Valderrama v. Rousseau, 780 F.3d 1108, 1110 n.1 (11th Cir. 2015).
2
Case: 15-15052 Date Filed: 09/29/2016 Page: 3 of 16
After reinjuring his finger, Mr. Chaney repeatedly sought medical care from
the prison. Dr. Martin, a physician at the prison, requested an orthopedic surgery
consult for Mr. Chaney. Dr. Martin’s request for consultation was reviewed by the
prison’s Utilization Review Committee (“URC”), which forwarded it to the
regional Utilization Review Committee (“Regional URC”). The Regional URC
approved the consultation.
In March 2012, an orthopedic surgeon at Grady Hospital examined Mr.
Chaney and determined that he would benefit from surgery. The URC approved
the surgery, which was scheduled for April 3, 2012 at Grady. But the surgery was
never performed. Although Mr. Chaney alleged in his complaint that prison
officials transported him to Grady for the surgery but then cancelled the surgery for
financial reasons, the summary judgment evidence reflected that on the date of the
surgery the prison failed to transport him to the hospital. There is no evidence in
the record addressing why Mr. Chaney was not taken to Grady for the surgery.
Mr. Chaney continued to request medical care for his finger, but subsequent
consultations revealed that surgery was unnecessary. Approximately three months
after the scheduled surgery, Mr. Chaney returned to Grady, where a physician’s
assistant examined him and planned to consult with a physician to develop further
treatment recommendations.
3
Case: 15-15052 Date Filed: 09/29/2016 Page: 4 of 16
When Mr. Chaney returned to the prison from that appointment, he fell as he
was exiting the prison van. At the time of the fall, Mr. Chaney was wearing leg
chains and a belly chain with handcuffs. The leg chains caught on the van while
Mr. Chaney was trying to exit and caused his fall. And because Mr. Chaney was in
handcuffs, he was unable to break his fall. Officer Young, the prison official
overseeing the transport, did not assist Mr. Cheney in exiting the vehicle. Mr.
Chaney claims the fall exacerbated his injury, resulting in unbearable and
unmanageable pain.
Later that day, Dr. James Winston, a physician at the prison, examined Mr.
Chaney. He noted abrasions on Mr. Chaney’s left hand and knee from the fall. He
also requested an orthopedic surgeon consultation for Mr. Chaney. But the URC
rejected the request for consultation as not medically necessary.
Approximately five months later, Dr. Winston again requested a consultation
with a specialist to consider an operation on Mr. Chaney’s finger. In the referral,
Dr. Winston asked whether it would be possible to guarantee normal position and
function for the finger. This time URC approved the consultation. A year after the
originally scheduled surgery, Dr. Finley of South Metro Bone & Joint examined
Mr. Chaney and opined that it was unlikely surgery would return Mr. Chaney to
normal function.
4
Case: 15-15052 Date Filed: 09/29/2016 Page: 5 of 16
Some eleven months afterward, Dr. Rosario, a prison physician, requested
another orthopedic consultation for Mr. Chaney. After the URC approved the
consultation, a hand surgeon at Grady examined Mr. Chaney. Mr. Chaney
complained to the surgeon about pain in his palm. But the surgeon recommended
against surgery because it would not alleviate Mr. Chaney’s pain in his palm or
improve his grip strength.
After Mr. Chaney fell out of the transport vehicle, he filed an administrative
claim with the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) seeking $50,000 in damages. Mr.
Chaney set forth two bases for his claim: (1) prison officials had been deliberately
indifferent to his serious medical by cancelling his appointment for hand surgery
without reason and (2) prison officials were negligent by failing to assist him when
he exited the transport vehicle. The BOP denied the administrative claim.
Mr. Chaney subsequently sued the United States, Dr. Winston, Dr. Martin,
the unnamed BOP Medical Director for the Southeast Region, and the URC in
district court for the Northern District of Georgia. Mr. Chaney expressly pled his
claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”). His complaint, when
liberally construed, also included claims against the named defendants alleging that
he was entitled to a remedy under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal
Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), for violation of his Eighth Amendment
rights. Because Mr. Chaney brought claims under the FTCA, the district court
5
Case: 15-15052 Date Filed: 09/29/2016 Page: 6 of 16
substituted the United States as the defendant in the action. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1346(b)(1).
Following discovery, Mr. Chaney and the government each moved for
summary judgment. In support of his motion, Mr. Chaney argued that government
employees had been negligent in two distinct ways. First, he asserted that prison
officials were negligent by refusing to permit the surgery on his finger to go
forward. Second, he contended that Officer Young was negligent when he failed to
assist Mr. Chaney in exiting the prison transport vehicle. Mr. Chaney also asserted
that prison officials had violated his Eighth Amendment rights as they were
deliberately indifferent to his serious medical need by refusing to allow the
surgery.
In its summary judgment motion, the government characterized Mr.
Chaney’s negligence claim based on failure to provide medical treatment as a
medical malpractice claim. The government argued that it was entitled to
summary judgment because Mr. Chaney had failed to come forward with evidence
of breach or causation. With respect to Mr. Chaney’s claim that Officer Young
was negligent by failing to assist him in exiting the prison transport vehicle, the
government argued that because Officer Young’s decision not to assist Mr. Chaney
in exiting the vehicle was a discretionary decision, it could not be held liable under
the FTCA.
6
Case: 15-15052 Date Filed: 09/29/2016 Page: 7 of 16
In his response to the government’s summary judgment motion, Mr. Chaney
asserted that his negligence claim under the FTCA was not a medical malpractice
claim. Instead, Mr. Chaney recast his claim as alleging an ordinary negligence
claim arising from the failure of prison employees to provide transportation to his
surgery after the URC approved the operation.
The magistrate judge recommended granting the government’s motion and
denying Mr. Chaney’s motion. Mr. Chaney objected, but the district court
ultimately adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendations, granted the
government’s summary judgment motion, and denied Mr. Chaney’s summary
judgment motion. This is Mr. Chaney’s appeal.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo.
Hamilton v. Southland Christian Sch., Inc., 680 F.3d 1316, 1318 (11th Cir. 2012).
We must “draw all inferences and review[] all evidence in the light most favorable
to the non-moving party.” Id. (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks
omitted). Summary judgment is appropriate when there is “no genuine dispute as
to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).
“We hold the allegations of a pro se complaint to less stringent standards
than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Campbell v. Air Jam. Ltd., 760 F.3d
7
 Case: 15-15052 Date Filed: 09/29/2016 Page: 8 of 16
1165, 1168-69 (11th Cir. 2014). Although we construe a pro se pleading liberally,
“this leniency does not give a court license to serve as de facto counsel for a party,
or to rewrite an otherwise deficient pleading in order to sustain an action.”
Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).
III. ANALYSIS
Mr. Chaney contends that the district court erred in granting summary
judgment to the government. He argues that the district court should have denied
the government summary judgment on his claims that: (1) prison officials were
negligent when they failed to transport him to the hospital for his scheduled hand
surgery; (2) prison officials were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical
need in violation of the Eighth Amendment when they failed to provide him with
surgery; and (3) Officer Young was negligent when he failed to assist Mr. Cheney
in exiting the prison transport vehicle. 2 We consider each claim in turn.
2
Although Mr. Chaney’s complaint could be construed to raise a negligence claim based
on medical malpractice, Mr. Chaney told the district court that he was not raising a medical
malpractice claim and has not argued in our Court that he asserted a medical malpractice claim.
But even assuming that Mr. Chaney raised a medical malpractice claim, the district court
properly granted summary judgment. In FTCA cases, state law generally determines the extent
of the United States’ liability. See Pate v. Oakwood Mobile Homes, Inc., 374 F.3d 1081, 1084
(11th Cir. 2004). Under Georgia law, the plaintiff in a medical malpractice case “must present
expert testimony establishing that the defendant’s negligence either proximately caused or
contributed to his injuries.” Beasley v. Northside Hosp., Inc., 658 S.E.2d 233, 236 (Ga. Ct. App.
2008). Because Mr. Chaney came forward with no expert testimony establishing proximate
cause, the government is entitled to summary judgment on the medical malpractice claim.
8
Case: 15-15052 Date Filed: 09/29/2016 Page: 9 of 16
A. Negligence Claim Based on the Prison’s Failure to Transport
Mr. Chaney contends that the district court erred in granting summary
judgment because he had come forward with evidence showing that he was injured
by the negligence of prison transportation employees who failed to bring him to his
scheduled hand surgery. 3 The district court refused to consider this claim because
it was untimely as Mr. Chaney raised it for the first time in his response to the
government’s summary judgment motion. We agree.
We have held that a plaintiff may not raise a new claim, and in effect amend
his complaint, through argument in his brief opposing summary judgment.
Gilmour v. Gates, McDonald & Co., 382 F.3d 1312, 1315 (11th Cir. 2004).
Instead, “[a]t the summary judgment stage, the proper procedure for plaintiffs to
assert a new claim is to amend the complaint in accordance with [Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure] 15(a).” Id. We acknowledge that Mr. Chaney is a pro se litigant
and that we must construe his complaint liberally. Nonetheless, Mr. Chaney must
follow procedural rules. See Albra v. Advan, Inc., 490 F.3d 826, 828-29 (11th Cir.
2007) (requiring pro se litigant to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
4(c) regarding service of process); see also Goldsmith v. City of Atmore, 996 F.2d
3
Mr. Chaney repeatedly asserts that he was scheduled for hand surgery multiple times
and that on each occasion prison officials failed to transport him to his scheduled surgery.
Although the record reflects that Mr. Chaney had several consultations with surgeons regarding
an operation on his hand, the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to Mr. Chaney,
reflects that only one surgery was scheduled.
9
Case: 15-15052 Date Filed: 09/29/2016 Page: 10 of 16
1155, 1161 (11th Cir. 1993) (recognizing pro se litigant must comply with
requirement in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) that litigant include a demand
for relief in her complaint). As such, even as a pro se litigant, Mr. Chaney cannot
raise new claims in his brief opposing summary judgment. Accordingly, if Mr.
Chaney’s complaint, liberally construed, failed to raise a claim for negligence
based on the prison’s failure to transport, then the district court properly granted
summary judgment to the government.
Liberally construing Mr. Chaney’s complaint, we hold that it failed to allege
a claim of negligence based on the government’s failure to transport. The
complaint alleged that the URC improperly conditioned approval of Mr. Chaney’s
surgery on the surgeon guaranteeing that the procedure would be a success. But it
never alleged that prison officials failed to transport him to a scheduled surgery.
Moreover, there are no allegations in the complaint that would support such a
conclusion. Instead, Mr. Chaney alleged in his complaint that he was transported
to the hospital for his scheduled surgery but that prison officials then cancelled the
surgery at the last minute. Given this allegation and the absence of any allegation
in the alternative that prison officials failed to transport him, the government could
not have understood from the complaint that Mr. Chaney was alleging negligence
based on prison officials’ failure to transport him to a scheduled surgery. Because
Mr. Chaney raised the failure to transport claim for the first time in his brief
10
Case: 15-15052 Date Filed: 09/29/2016 Page: 11 of 16
opposing summary judgment, the district court properly refused to consider this
claim and granted summary judgment to the government.
B. Eighth Amendment Claim Based on Deliberate Indifference
Mr. Chaney also claims that prison officials violated his Eighth Amendment
rights by delaying the surgery for his finger, which caused permanent injury. He
argues that the district court erred by granting summary judgment on his deliberate
indifference claim. We disagree.
Prison officials violate the Eighth Amendment when they act with deliberate
indifference to an inmate’s serious medical need. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97,
104 (1976). Prison guards may act with deliberate indifference by “intentionally
denying or delaying access to medical care or intentionally interfering with the
treatment once prescribed.” Id. at 104-05 (footnote omitted). To prevail on a
claim of deliberate indifference based on delaying or denying medical care, a
plaintiff must show (1) a serious medical need; (2) the defendant’s deliberate
indifference to that need; and (3) his injuries were caused by the defendant’s
deliberate indifference. See Townsend v. Jefferson Cty., 601 F.3d 1152, 1158 (11th
Cir. 2010). In order to establish a defendant’s deliberate indifference, the plaintiff
must show “(1) subjective knowledge of a risk of serious harm; (2) disregard of
that risk; (3) by conduct that is more than [gross] negligence.” Id. (alteration in
original) (internal quotation marks omitted). Subjective knowledge requires that a
11
Case: 15-15052 Date Filed: 09/29/2016 Page: 12 of 16
defendant “must both be aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn
that a substantial risk of harm exists, and he must also draw the inference.”
Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994).
Liberally construed, Mr. Chaney asserted in his complaint that Dr. Winston,
Dr. Martin, the BOP’s Southeast Regional Medical Director, and the URC in
Atlanta acted with deliberate indifference to his medical need for surgery. 4 But at
the summary judgment stage, Mr. Chaney failed to come forward with evidence
from which a reasonable jury could conclude that any of these actors were
deliberately indifferent.
First, there is no evidence showing that Dr. Winston or Dr. Martin
disregarded a risk of harm to Mr. Chaney. These physicians treated Mr. Chaney at
the prison and ordered orthopedic consultations to determine whether he needed
surgery. Because the undisputed evidence shows that both physicians requested
consultations from orthopedic specialists for Mr. Chaney’s finger, no reasonable
jury could conclude that either physician disregarded a serious risk of harm.
Second, Mr. Chaney has failed to come forward with evidence that the
BOP’s Southeast Regional Medical Director acted with deliberate indifference.
4
We pause to differentiate the theories underlying Mr. Chaney’s Bivens claim and his
FTCA claim discussed in Section II.A above. In his Bivens claim, Mr. Chaney alleges that the
named defendants provided him with inadequate medical care by refusing to perform or approve
the hand surgery. But, in the FTCA claim, Mr. Chaney alleges in the alternative that although
prison officials approved his hand surgery, prison employees responsible for transportation were
negligent in failing to transport him to the scheduled surgery.
12
Case: 15-15052 Date Filed: 09/29/2016 Page: 13 of 16
Indeed, because Mr. Chaney has come forward with no evidence of any action
taken by the Medical Director, there is no evidence from which a reasonable jury
could conclude that the Medical Director was aware of facts from which the
inference that a substantial risk of harm to Mr. Chaney existed could be drawn and
also drew the inference.
Third, there is no evidence showing that the URC (or its members) were
deliberately indifferent. The record evidence shows that the URC approved
surgery for Mr. Chaney in March 2012. Even assuming that a reasonable jury
could infer the URC was responsible for delaying Mr. Chaney’s scheduled hand
surgery in March 2012, no reasonable jury could conclude that the URC was
deliberately indifferent to his medical need. As we explained above, to establish
deliberate indifference, Mr. Chaney had to show that the URC had subjective
knowledge of a risk of harm, meaning it was aware of facts from which an
inference that there was a risk could be drawn and also actually drew the inference.
See Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837. Here, there is no evidence from which a reasonable
jury could infer that the URC, or any of its members, actually drew the inference
that Mr. Chaney faced a substantial risk of harm based on the delay or denial of
surgery. Accordingly, we conclude that the district court properly granted
summary judgment with respect to Mr. Chaney’s Eighth Amendment claims.
13
Case: 15-15052 Date Filed: 09/29/2016 Page: 14 of 16
C. Negligence Claim Based on Mr. Chaney’s Fall
Mr. Chaney also asserts that the district court erred in granting summary
judgment on his FTCA claim alleging that Officer Young was negligent when he
failed to assist him in exiting the prison’s transport vehicle. We discern no error.
The FTCA waives the sovereign immunity of the United States for claims
for “personal injury . . . caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission of any
employee of the Government while acting within the scope of his office or
employment.” 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)(1). But Congress excepted from this limited
waiver “any claim . . . based upon the exercise or performance or the failure to
exercise or perform a discretionary function or duty on the part of a federal agency
or an employee of the Government.” Id. § 2680(a).
We apply a two-part test to determine whether the discretionary function
applies. First, we consider “whether the conduct involves an element of judgment
or choice, which will be the case unless a federal statute, regulation, or policy
specifically prescribes a course of action embodying a fixed or readily
ascertainable standard.” Cranford v. United States, 466 F.3d 955, 958 (11th Cir.
2006) (internal quotation marks omitted and citation omitted). Second, we “ask
whether the judgment or choice is grounded in considerations of public policy
because the purpose of the [discretionary function] exception is to prevent judicial
second-guessing of legislative and administrative decisions grounded in social,
14
Case: 15-15052 Date Filed: 09/29/2016 Page: 15 of 16
economic, and political policy through the medium of an action in tort.” Id.
(internal quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, we focus on “the nature of the
actions taken and on whether they are susceptible to policy analysis.” Id. (internal
quotation marks omitted).
Officer Young was engaged in a discretionary function when he decided not
to assist Mr. Chaney in exiting the prison van. First, we conclude that Officer
Young’s challenged conduct involved an element of judgment or choice. Mr.
Chaney has identified no federal statute, regulation, or policy that required Officer
Young to provide physical assistance to inmates entering or exiting a transportation
vehicle. And the government’s evidence shows that prison officials retain
discretion to decide whether to assist inmates exiting a transport vehicle.
Second, a prison official’s decision whether to assist an inmate exiting a
transportation vehicle is grounded in considerations of public policy. The decision
about whether to provide physical assistance requires a prison official to weigh
officer safety, public safety, and risks to the inmate. Given these policy
considerations, we readily conclude that Officer Young was engaged in a
discretionary function. Because the discretionary function exception applies, the
district court properly concluded the government had not waived its sovereign
immunity under the FTCA for this claim.
15
Case: 15-15052 Date Filed: 09/29/2016 Page: 16 of 16
IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the district court judgment. 5
AFFIRMED.
5
Mr. Chaney also argues on appeal that the district court abused its discretion when it
(1) extended the deadline for the government to file its reply brief in support of its summary
judgment motion and (2) declined to appoint Mr. Chaney counsel. We find no abuse of
discretion as to either issue.
16