Michael Miller v. John Keast, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Nevada adopts a magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation and partially grants defendants’ motion for summary judgment in Michael Miller’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. The court grants summary judgment on claims against Hartman and Keast, on the pain-medication aspect of Miller’s Eighth Amendment claim against Dr. Halki, and on the First Amendment retaliation claim. The court denies summary judgment on Miller’s Eighth Amendment claim against Dr. Halki based on an alleged delay in plastic surgery consultation and refers the case for a settlement conference.

Holdings

1. Summary judgment was granted for Hartman because Miller presented insufficient evidence of Hartman's personal participation in, knowledge of, or deliberate disregard of a risk to Miller's health.
2. Summary judgment was granted for Keast because Miller failed to present a genuine dispute of material fact concerning Keast's supervisory authority over Dr. Halki or knowledge of Miller's medical condition and complaints.
3. Summary judgment was granted for Dr. Halki on the portion of the Eighth Amendment claim concerning pain medication because the undisputed evidence showed that Dr. Halki prescribed Baclofen after Miller failed to tolerate Elavil.
4. Summary judgment was denied on Miller's claim that Dr. Halki was deliberately indifferent by delaying treatment for skin grafts, eyelid reconstruction surgery, and removal of the tissue expander.
5. Dr. Halki was not entitled to qualified immunity on the Eighth Amendment claim based on delayed medical treatment.
6. Summary judgment was denied on exhaustion grounds as to the remaining Eighth Amendment claim because prison officials effectively rendered the grievance process unavailable to Miller.
7. Summary judgment was granted for Dr. Halki on Miller's First Amendment retaliation claim because Miller lacked sufficient evidence that Dr. Halki knew of Miller's protected reports or that those reports motivated the alleged denial of medical treatment.

Questions Presented

1. Whether summary judgment was proper on Miller's Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference claim against Lieutenant Hartman based on lack of personal participation and evidence that Hartman knew of and disregarded a serious medical risk.
2. Whether summary judgment was proper on Miller's Eighth Amendment claim against Keast based on the absence of evidence that Keast supervised Dr. Halki or knew of Miller's medical condition or complaints.
3. Whether summary judgment was proper on the Eighth Amendment claim against Dr. Halki concerning pain medication.
4. Whether summary judgment was proper on the Eighth Amendment claim against Dr. Halki concerning delay in obtaining plastic-surgery treatment.
5. Whether administrative remedies were unavailable such that Miller's failure to complete the grievance process did not bar the remaining Eighth Amendment claim.
6. Whether summary judgment was proper on Miller's First Amendment retaliation claim against Dr. Halki because Miller lacked evidence that Dr. Halki knew of his protected conduct or that the conduct motivated the alleged adverse action.
7. Whether the Report and Recommendation should be adopted in the absence of objections.

Disposition

other