Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Barnes v. Cullman County Detention Center

United States District Court, N.D. Alabama, Northeastern Division

March 12, 2017

GORDON EUGENE BARNES, Plaintiff,
v.
CULLMAN COUNTY DETENTION CENTER, et al., Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION

          ABDUL K. KALLON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Gordon Eugene Barnes, an Alabama state prisoner acting pro se, filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the Cullman County Detention Center (“CCDC”), Sheriff Matt Gentry, Warden Adam Whitehead, a “Dr. Lyren, ” and the “day shift deputies” exhibited deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Doc. 12. After the magistrate judge entered a report recommending dismissal of all claims, see doc. 15 at 15, Barnes timely filed objections, see doc. 16. For the reasons stated below, each of Barnes's objections is due to be overruled.

         I. BARNES'S ALLEGATIONS

         As discussed in the Report and Recommendation, Barnes alleges that around 11:00 a.m. on April 28, 2016, he “slipped on a wet spot [at the Cullman County Detention Center], fell[, ] and the corner of a post went between the pinky and ring finger of [his] left hand breaking it.” Doc. 12 at 5. A prison nurse named “Mike” arranged for Barnes's transport to the hospital for an “x-ray and treatment, ” and provided Barnes with an ice-pack “in the meantime.” Id. Barnes was transported to the hospital at 1:40 p.m., “x-rayed, and then immediately and without treatment . . . returned to the detention center . . . .” Id. at 7 (emphasis omitted). Barnes alleges that he went “24 hours without receiving any kind of treatment” and “sent a message to medical threatening to sue if [he] did not receive immediate treatment.” Id. That night, he filled-out a form requesting to see an orthopedic surgeon. Id.

         After going “4 days without any kind of treatment, ” the prison staff took Barnes to see the orthopedic surgeon, who “buddy taped” Barnes's hand and scheduled a follow-up appointment for May 16, 2016. Id. Barnes alleges that the deputies “did not take [him] to [his] appointment” and that, when he reminded one deputy of his appointment, the deputy allegedly replied, “‘Don't start this shit' and [‘]quit bothering me.'” Id. The deputies finally took Barnes to his follow-up appointment on May 26, 2016. Id. at 8.

         Barnes pleads that “Sheriff Matt Gentry and Warden Adam Whitehead are ultimately responsible for all policies and procedures followed at the Cullman County Detention Center, ” id. at 7, and that Dr. Lyren, the “Cullman County Detention Center Doctor, ” has “never seen [him], never examined [him], and never gotten involved in his medical care, ” id. at 8 (emphasis omitted).

         II. ANALYSIS

         Barnes raises several objections to the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation, which the court addresses as to each defendant below.[1]

         A. Cullman County Detention Center

         The magistrate judge recommends the dismissal of all claims against the CCDC on the basis that a plaintiff cannot sue a county jail under Alabama law. Doc. 15 at 8-9 (citing Dean v. Barber, 951 F.2d 1210, 1214-15 (11th Cir. 1992)). This court agrees, and Barnes does not voice any objection. Accordingly, all claims against the CCDC are due to be dismissed.

         B. Sheriff Matt Gentry and Warden Adam Whitehead

         The magistrate judge next recommends the dismissal of all claims against Sheriff Gentry and Warden Whitehead, both in their official and individual capacities. Doc. 15 at 10-12. First, as to any official capacity claims, sheriffs and deputy sheriffs - as executive officers of the State - are immune from suit pursuant to Article I, Section 14 of the Alabama Constitution. See Tinney v. Shores, 77 F.3d 378, 383 (11th Cir. 1996) (citing, e.g., Parker v. Amerson, 519 So.2d 442, 443 (Ala. 1987)). Barnes objects that Gentry and Whitehead “are not immune from lawsuit, because [he] [is] not suing the state.” Doc. 16 at 2 (emphasis omitted). This objection is OVERRULED because, as executive officers of the state, see Tinney, 77 F.3d at 383, any action against Gentry and Whitehead in their official capacities is tantamount to a lawsuit against the state itself.

         As to any individual capacity claims, the magistrate judge concluded that Barnes fails to allege facts showing that Gentry and Whitehead had any personal involvement in the alleged delay or denial of medical care, or, alternatively, that Barnes fails to plead facts giving rise to a viable deliberate indifference claim. Doc. 15 at 10-12 (citing Case v. Riley, 270 F. App'x 908, 911 (11th Cir. 2008)) (claims against supervisory personnel who did not personally participate in the acts complained of are not actionable under § 1983). Barnes objects on the basis that the on-duty nurse, “Mike, ” told Barnes that he would notify Whitehead and Gentry of his injuries, and that, “on the way back to the detention center [after Barnes received x-rays], when [Barnes] asked why [he] was not treated, they told me Warden Whitehead had ordered me returned to the jail ‘immediately following x-rays, per Sheriff Gentry.'” Doc. 16 at 2. These allegations do not show that these defendants consciously disregarded a serious risk of harm to Barnes. Furthermore, to the extent Gentry and/or Whitehead directed staff to immediately return inmates to the jail following off-site appointments, Barnes fails to show that this practice constitutes a “policy or custom of instructing county jail employees to deny adequate medical care.” Doc. 15 at 11. For these reasons, Barnes's objections are OVERRULED, and all claims against Gentry and Whitehead are due to be dismissed.

         C. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.