Michael Victor v. Kimberly Reynolds; Advanced Correctional Healthcare, Inc.

Summary

The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed judgment as a matter of law for Advanced Correctional Healthcare in a detainee’s deliberate-indifference and Monell action arising from the failure to provide anti-seizure medication. The court held that witness testimony expressing a lack of recollection did not establish that jail officers contacted an ACH medical provider, and that the plaintiff’s hearsay testimony did not supply sufficient evidence of such contact. The court also declined to review issues rendered moot by the judgment and rejected the plaintiff’s challenge concerning discovery sanctions.

Holdings

1. Testimony that witnesses lack recollection of whether a call occurred, without corroborating evidence, does not satisfy a plaintiff's affirmative burden to prove that the call more likely than not occurred.
2. Victor did not present sufficient evidence that ACH's policy or custom directly caused the failure to provide his medication because he did not prove that any jail officer alerted an ACH employee to his medical need.
3. Victor's statement that he understood an officer had contacted a nurse and that the nurse denied his medication was inadmissible hearsay and could not support the judgment; his separate statement that an officer intended to contact a nurse was admissible to show intent but, without corroboration, was insufficient to prove that the call occurred.
4. The district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that ACH had not violated its discovery orders and in denying sanctions and default judgment.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Victor presented legally sufficient evidence from which a reasonable jury could find that a jail officer contacted an ACH employee about his medication, thereby establishing the causation component of his Monell claim.
2. Whether Victor's testimony about what an officer allegedly told him supplied admissible and sufficient evidence that an ACH employee had been contacted.
3. Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying Victor's motion for discovery sanctions and default judgment.

Disposition

affirmed