Anthony Ewing v. Sara A. Blomstrom, et al.

Summary

This initial review order addresses a sentenced inmate’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims alleging inadequate medical treatment for a fractured finger. The court dismisses the claims against most defendants, permits an Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference claim to proceed against APRN Morant in her individual capacity, and addresses the limitations on official-capacity claims and prospective relief.

Holdings

1. Because Ewing was a sentenced prisoner, the Eighth Amendment, not the Fourteenth Amendment, governs his claims concerning inadequate medical treatment.
2. A prisoner asserting deliberate indifference to serious medical needs must plausibly allege both an objectively sufficiently serious deprivation of medical care and that the defendant acted or failed to act while actually aware of a substantial risk of serious inmate harm.
3. Ewing failed to state plausible individual-capacity Eighth Amendment claims for damages against Dr. Blomstrom, Dr. Yang, Dr. Maletz, or APRN Campbell because the alleged conduct amounted at most to negligence, medical malpractice, or disagreement with medical judgment, without facts showing conscious disregard of a substantial risk of serious harm.
4. Ewing may proceed on an individual-capacity Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference claim against APRN Morant based on allegations that she knowingly refused to provide a doctor-ordered pail needed for his finger rehabilitation.
5. The Eleventh Amendment bars Ewing's official-capacity damages claims and his request for a declaration that the defendants violated federal law in the past.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Ewing plausibly alleged that Dr. Blomstrom, Dr. Yang, Dr. Maletz, or APRN Campbell acted with deliberate indifference to a serious medical need in violation of the Eighth Amendment.
2. Whether Ewing plausibly alleged an Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference claim against APRN Morant based on her refusal to provide a doctor-ordered pail for finger rehabilitation.
3. Whether Ewing could pursue official-capacity damages, retrospective declaratory relief, or prospective injunctive relief against the defendants under the Eleventh Amendment and Ex parte Young.
4. Whether the Fourteenth Amendment, rather than the Eighth Amendment, governed the inadequate-medical-treatment claims of a sentenced prisoner.

Disposition

other