Summary
In this prisoner civil rights action, the court conducted screening under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. The court held that the complaint stated a colorable Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference claim against correctional officer S.C.O. f/n/u Garska based on removing the plaintiff's medically approved back brace, and allowed the claim to proceed.
Holdings
- The complaint sufficiently alleged an objectively serious medical need because Bradberry alleged multiple spinal injuries and a doctor-prescribed or medically approved need to wear a back brace.
- The complaint stated a colorable Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference claim against Garska in her individual capacity and therefore survived initial PLRA screening.
Questions Presented
- Whether the complaint plausibly alleged that Bradberry had a sufficiently serious medical need.
- Whether the complaint plausibly alleged that Officer Garska acted with deliberate indifference to that medical need by removing Bradberry's medically approved back brace despite a nurse's approval.
Disposition
other
Cases Cited (27)
- United States v. Smotherman, 838 F.3d 736, 739 (6th Cir. 2016)(followed)
- Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007)(followed)
- Thomas v. Eby, 481 F.3d 434, 437 (6th Cir. 2007)(followed)
- Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992)(followed)
- Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972)(followed)
- Jourdan v. Jabe, 951 F.2d 108, 110 (6th Cir. 1991)(followed)
- McDonald v. Hall, 610 F.2d 16, 19 (1st Cir. 1979)(followed)
- Dominguez v. Corr. Med. Servs., 555 F.3d 543, 549 (6th Cir. 2009)(followed)
- Sigley v. City of Panama Heights, 437 F.3d 527, 533 (6th Cir. 2006)(followed)
- Grubbs v. Bradley, 552 F. Supp. 1052, 1119-24 (M.D. Tenn. 1982)(followed)
Showing top 10 of 27.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…