Tavon M. Mouzone v. Holly Hoover, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Maryland dismissed without prejudice Tavon M. Mouzone’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims alleging deliberate indifference to serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The court held that the complaint did not plausibly allege deliberate indifference by YesCare, Swick, Dr. Uzicanin, Hoover, or Fazenbaker, and treated the defendants’ motions as motions to dismiss.

Holdings

1. A private corporation acting under color of state law cannot be held liable under § 1983 solely because it employs an alleged tortfeasor; the plaintiff must plausibly identify a policy or custom that caused the constitutional injury. Mouzone did not do so.
2. A complaint does not plausibly state deliberate indifference merely by alleging that a medical provider observed a prisoner's shoulder swelling and pain and returned him to his cell without describing what treatment the provider provided or failed to provide.
3. A prisoner's disagreement with a physician's treatment judgment, without facts showing that the physician knowingly and recklessly disregarded a serious medical need, does not state an Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference claim.
4. Providing physical therapy and ibuprofen does not plausibly constitute deliberate indifference merely because the prisoner preferred surgery, an MRI, or specialist care, or because the treatment later failed to relieve his pain.
5. A prison medical provider's decision not to treat an inmate's inability to move his arm as an emergency, coupled with an instruction to submit a sick-call slip, does not plausibly establish deliberate indifference absent facts showing that the decision was reckless in light of the provider's actual knowledge. A context-free statement that the provider could do nothing likewise is insufficient.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Mouzone plausibly alleged that YesCare Corp. was liable under § 1983 for a policy or custom causing deliberate indifference to his medical needs.
2. Whether Mouzone plausibly alleged that Swick was deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs.
3. Whether Mouzone plausibly alleged that Dr. Uzicanin was deliberately indifferent by referring him to physical therapy rather than prescribing pain medication.
4. Whether Mouzone plausibly alleged that Hoover was deliberately indifferent by approving physical therapy and prescribing ibuprofen rather than providing surgery, an MRI, or specialist care.
5. Whether Mouzone plausibly alleged that Fazenbaker was deliberately indifferent by declining to treat his inability to move his arm as an emergency and later stating that she could do nothing for him.

Disposition

dismissed