Edwin Ledford v. Warden State Prison (2011)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

EXCERPT

Memorandum of Decision

THE COURT:  Thank you.   All right.   Well, good afternoon once again, everyone.   We're back on the record—it's a little after 3:35—on  this matter of Edwin Ledford versus Warden, and I am prepared to rule.

This—I'm gonna issue an oral ruling now and I'll ask that this be typed up by the appropriate individual and provided to me for my signature.   It will then become part of the file and—with copies provided to you, Mr. Ledford and to the state as well.

Now, this matter is here because Mr. Ledford has filed for a writ of habeas corpus in which he claims that his constitutional right to protection against cruel and unusual punishment has been violated because the Department of Correction has failed to provide him with adequate medical care.

I should note that Mr. Ledford is in the custody of the Department of Correction at Northern and that in this particular matter, Mr. Ledford, your sentence is not at issue.   What you are concerned about is your claim that you are not being provided with adequate medical care.   Specifically, your principal claim is that you are not being provided with proper medical care in connection with a claim to having head problems;  that is to say, headache in the right side of your head, which you say is severe and of a continuing nature.

We just heard testimony in this case.   Obviously, you testified, sir.   We also heard testimony from Dr. Maurer.   And one exhibit, Exhibit A, was introduced into evidence.   I've had a chance to look at that during the brief recess that we just took.

The petition itself indicates that the petitioner believes that the blood in his head isn't circulating correctly and that his requests for an MRI have been ignored.   And, as I've said, the petitioner claims that he has had ongoing problems in a significant nature.

Now, as I pointed out, in order to prevail in this matter, the petitioner has to demonstrate a couple of things.   Preliminarily, the 8th Amendment to the United States Constitution, which is binding on the states, prohibits detention in a manner that constitutes cruel and unusual punishment.   To prevail on a claim, as I've indicated, challenging the conditions of confinement based on a medical claim, a petitioner must demonstrate that prison officials acted with deliberate indifference concerning serious medical needs.   And there is substantial case law in that regard.

One case I'll mention for the record is Hunnicutt, H-u-n-n-i-c-u-t-t, versus Commissioner of Correction.   That's at 288 Conn. 326.   It's a 2008 case.   A prisoner seeking habeas relief based on a claim that inadequate medical care is provided must prove that the claimed medical problem is sufficiently serious such that he is being denied the minimal civilized measure of life's necessities.   And it has to be demonstrated that—from an objective standpoint.

As I pointed out earlier when we talked about this, it's been observed that a serious medical need refers to a condition of urgency that may produce death, degeneration, or extreme pain.

Now, as to the first issue—that is to say, whether or not the—it has been demonstrated by the petitioner that the medical condition is objectively sufficiently serious such that he is being denied the minimal civilized measure of life's necessities, I think that the proof on this issue is questionable.   I understand that the state has chosen and does choose not to argue over this extensively because the state takes the position that you have failed entirely on the second prong;  that is, the demonstrating of deliberate indifference.

My view, sir, is, is that you are testifying—I see nothing that indicates to me that you are not testifying in good faith about a problem that you perceived yourself to have.   I don't doubt that you have headaches.   And I will not dote on this because I think the case can be resolved on the second prong of deliberate indifference.   But I do want to say for the record that while I don't doubt that you have ongoing problems that concern you a great deal, I do doubt that you have demonstrated in a legal sense that—that this is a matter of such serious medical need that you can satisfy the first prong.   So on that issue I don't think you have met your burden of proof.

But I want to turn to the second issue because I think that's rather clear.   And let me repeat what I said before in ruling.   And I'm going to be denying your petition for the reasons that I'm explaining.   To prove deliberate indifference, you must show more than simply that there's a good faith disagreement over treatment or that the treatment is even negligent.   You have to demonstrate something akin to criminal recklessness.   You have to show specifically that a prison official or officials acted subjectively with deliberate indifference.   In other words, there is no liability under the 8th Amendment unless you can demonstrate that the prison official or officials know of and disregarded or are disregarding an excessive risk to inmate health safety.

So it's a very, very difficult thing to prove and before I go into some of the facts, I want to say that I do not doubt, based on my review of the file and listening to the witness here today—I do not doubt that the Department of Correction on an ongoing basis will do whatever it can to address the medical problems that you raise.   And I'm not sure that you even doubt that.   I think maybe there's a disagreement here, but I do not doubt that.

Now, on prong two I find that you have failed entirely to meet your burden on that matter, Mr. Ledyard.   And the reasons—I'm sorry—Mr.   Ledford.  But there are a number of reasons—I'm not gonna go through all of the testimony—but it seems to me that there is virtually no evidence that would demonstrate or indicate that prison officials have acted with subjective deliberate indifference.   I see no evidence that prison officials knew of and disregarded an excessive risk to your health safety.   And so I'm gonna speak in broad brushes and categorize the testimony.

First of all, in listening to the testimony—your testimony and that of the doctor—and also in reviewing Exhibit A, it is apparent to me that prison officials have treated your concerns in a sustained and continuous way.   They have reviewed it.   They have evaluated you on an ongoing basis and will continue to do so.   For example, I note one of the documents here is a letter from Dr. Maurer to you dated June 1, 2011, in which Dr. Maurer indicates that, in response to a letter that you wrote to Dr. Hines, that she has reviewed your medical chart in detail and that she has concluded that you have been carefully evaluated and treated for the problems that you have.

She also notes in the letter that she has discussed your case with Dr. Wright and decided that he will continue to follow you closely and continue to provide care as needed.   He will continue to review your medical condition on an ongoing basis.

So—and I will not go into great detail in terms of the medical records, but it is replete with references to tests that have been performed—a variety of tests that have been performed, a variety of evaluations and re-evaluations that have been made, the prescribing of various drugs—Prilosec, Motrin, Elevil—which apparently has been pretty successful.   And so it seems to me that prison officials have not only been—have not only not been deliberately indifferent, but they've given your matter careful concern.

Now, you—and again, I will mention that the medical records have much more information about the ongoing treatment.

You have indicated—and one of your concerns is that an MRI has not been ordered.   Now, I'm a layperson.   I'm not a doctor.   Neither are you.   But the only—that's right, neither of us are—the only expert witness in this case who testified was Dr. Maurer who was very clear that an MRI, under the circumstances presented, would serve no purpose.   So even though you might think it's a good idea or I might think it's a good idea, there's no real evidence that it is.   And, in fact, the only evidence is that it's not really advisable.   And I fully credit Dr. Maurer's testimony, by the way—as I do yours.

It appears, based on my best review here of the record, that the—and the documents—that on a number of occasions, Dr. Wright has indicated—and you've indicated to him—that the headaches are resolving—if not entirely, largely resolving.   Dr. Maurer testified about the entries of 5–24–11 in which Wright noted no headaches, no stomach problems, no—I can't read my own writing—but no other sorts of problems are indicated, and that you indicated that the medication seemed to be working pretty well.

On 8–9 of '11, which is rather recently, Dr. Wright took a look or made some notes, once again, and he indicated that your eating could be aggravating some of your stomach problems, but that you said you were doing well.   Apparently the doctor advised you to limit your exercise.   I have to say that—that if you're doing two thousand pushups a day and seven hundred and fifty dips a day, first of all, that's amazing.   And secondly, the doctor seems to think that's excessive.   And it may be that this is contributing to some of your problems.   But I've never heard of anybody who does that many pushups.   So I think you ought to—maybe you ought to listen to what the doctor is telling you.

In conclusion, in connection with the medical records, it is clear that you've been treated, you've been followed.   There's no evidence of deliberate indifference.   It appears much more likely that these headaches are in the nature of tension headaches or headaches that may be caused by distressers that you feel being incarcerated and other—perhaps life problems or family issues that I don't even know about.   But there's no indication that I see in the record that you have a problem that is being ignored or overlooked in connection with your headaches whatsoever.

So I could go on.   I could characterize more of the testimony, but frankly I don't think I have a need to do that.   My conclusion is that you have failed to prove either prong that is required under this claim;  that is to say, you have failed to demonstrate that the medical condition is objectively of sufficient seriousness that you're being denied the minimum civilized measure of life's necessities or treatment.

And more clearly than that—because even if you assume that you had proved the first prong, it is quite clear that you have been unable to prove that the prison officials acted with subjective deliberate indifference.   In fact, I think you very candidly conceded essentially that you're not claiming that they don't care or that they're not trying.   Is that correct?   You're not saying that.   What you're saying is that you just don't think they're treating you in a way that is fully successful and that you totally agree with.

So for all of those reasons, I am going to deny your petition.   I hope I've explained it clearly and to your satisfaction.   Again, I have asked that this oral ruling be typed up.   And the clerk informs me that the clerk will be providing you and sending you in the next couple of weeks, I believe.   Is that correct?

THE CLERK:  I'll mail it out today, Your Honor.

THE COURT:  Okay. What will be mailed out today will be a form pursuant to which you can seek a petition for certification.   And that is to say, you can seek review of my decision at the appellate court.   And also a form that will permit you to argue that you should have a waiver;  that is, you shouldn't have to pay any costs and fees if you decide to appeal this decision to the appellate court.

On that score, I want to point out my name is Lavine.   There's another judge named Levine.   We often get each other's mail and phone calls and get confused, but I believe that it was Judge George Levine who has performed some of the pretrials in this matter.   It was not me.

All right.   I think I've covered the ground pretty well.   Do you have anything you want to say now at all, Mr. Ledford?

THE PETITIONER:  No, sir.

THE COURT:  Do you understand the ruling?

THE PETITIONER:  Yes, sir.

THE COURT:  Okay. All right.   Anything from the state?

ATTY. BIGGAR:  No, Your Honor.

THE COURT:  All right.   Well, thank you very much.   Thank you, sir.   Thank you very much.   And we are now adjourned.

THE PETITIONER:  Thank you.

ATTY. BIGGAR:  Good luck, Mr. Ledford.

THE PETITIONER:  Thank you.

THE COURT:  Yes, good luck, sir.

THE PETITIONER:  Thank you.

Lavine, J.

Lavine, Douglas S., J.