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.

Wallace v. United States

United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Lake Charles Division

February 28, 2019

ADAM BRENT WALLACE REG. # 219036
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          KATHLEEN KAY, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         Before the court are a Motion for Summary Judgment [doc. 48] filed by the government and a Motion to Dismiss and Motion for Summary Judgment [doc. 49] filed by the individual defendants in this matter. This matter was referred to the undersigned for review, report, and recommendation in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 and the standing orders of this court.

         I.

         Background

          This suit arises from alleged delays in Wallace's medical care while he was an inmate in the custody of the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”), during his incarceration at the Federal Correctional Institution at Oakdale, Louisiana (“FCIO”). Doc. 5. Specifically, he alleges that he was denied follow-up treatment for hemorrhoids due to the negligence of defendants Mary Thomas and Joe Alexander. Id. He seeks relief through a suit filed in this court under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 91 S.Ct. 1999 (1971), [1] against Alexander and Thomas and under the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2671 et seq., against the United States government.

         The government now moves for summary judgment, asserting that the record reveals Wallace received adequate care at FCIO. Doc. 48. The individual defendants also move for summary judgment, asserting that (1) Wallace cannot establish that they were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs and (2) they are shielded from liability by the doctrine of qualified immunity. Doc. 49; doc. 49, att. 1. Alternatively, they seek dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) by claiming Wallace has not exhausted his administrative remedies for his Bivens claims. Wallace has not filed a response to either motion, but instead submits a statement of issues [doc. 53] in addition to the “Response” [doc. 45] he submitted to the individual defendants' answer.

         II.

         Law & Application

          A. Failure to Exhaust

         1. Legal Standards

         Because the individual defendants' Motion to Dismiss was filed after they appeared and filed an answer in this suit [doc. 42], it is properly considered as a Rule 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings rather than a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. Additionally, because defendants' motion relies on evidence outside the pleadings (namely, a declaration from BOP employee Ashlee Welch), the court converts it to a motion for summary judgment and reviews it under the standards of Rule 56. E.g., Wright v. La. Corrugated Prods., LLC, 59 F.Supp.3d 767, 773 (W.D. La. 2014).

         A court should grant a motion for summary judgment when the movant shows “that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56. The party moving for summary judgment is initially responsible for identifying portions of pleadings and discovery that show the lack of a genuine issue of material fact. Tubacex, Inc. v. M/V Risan, 45 F.3d 951, 954 (5th Cir. 1995). The court must deny the motion for summary judgment if the movant fails to meet this burden. Id.

         If the movant makes this showing, however, the burden then shifts to the non-moving party to “set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 106 S.Ct. 2505, 2511 (1986) (quotations omitted). This requires more than mere allegations or denials of the adverse party's pleadings. Instead, the nonmovant must submit “significant probative evidence” in support of his claim. State Farm Life Ins. Co. v. Gutterman, 896 F.2d 116, 118 (5th Cir. 1990). “If the evidence is merely colorable, or is not significantly probative, summary judgment may be granted.” Anderson, 106 S.Ct. at 2511 (citations omitted).

         A court may not make credibility determinations or weigh the evidence in ruling on a motion for summary judgment. Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 120 S.Ct. 2097, 2110 (2000). The court is also required to view all evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and draw all reasonable inferences in that party's favor. Clift v. Clift, 210 F.3d 268, 270 (5th Cir. 2000). Under this standard, a genuine issue of material fact exists if a ...


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.