# MCKINNEY v. CHRISTOPHER HOLMES

> District Court, D. New Jersey · October 1, 2024

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10656831

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, D. New Jersey
- **Decided:** October 1, 2024
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10656831

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding non-medical defendants are not deliberately indifferent “simply because they failed to respond directly to the medical complaints of a prisoner who was already being treated by the prison doctor”
- holding the plaintiff failed to identify similarly-situated individuals who were intentionally treated differently than himself, without any rational basis
- describing the “more specific provision” rule

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

IVAN G. MCKINNEY Civil Action No. 14-3563 (SDW-JBC)

Plaintiff,

v. OPINION

CHRISTOPHER HOLMES, et al.,

Defendants.

This matter comes before this Court on the motion for summary judgment by Defendant
Christopher Holmes (“Holmes”) (ECF No. 173); Plaintiff’s opposition brief to Holmes’ motion
for summary judgment (ECF No. 178); and Holmes’ reply brief (ECF No. 179). For the reasons
discussed below, this Court will grant Holmes’ motion for summary judgment.
I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Pro se Plaintiff Ivan McKinney (“Plaintiff”) initiated this prisoner civil rights action
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on June 4, 2014, alleging, in pertinent part, that the defendants provided
him with constitutionally inadequate medical care while he was incarcerated in South Woods
State Prison (“SWSP”) beginning around 2010. (ECF No. 4). The original complaint was
severed into three separate actions. (ECF No. 3). This action was designated for claims against
“John Doe Superintendent – SWSP.” (Id.) On July 26, 2018, Plaintiff, upon leave of Court,
substituted Christopher Holmes, Administrator of SWSP, as the defendant. (ECF Nos. , 66).1

1Plaintiff also named John and Jane Doe medical staff (the “Doe Defendants”) as defendants in
the amended complaint, although he had not yet identified or served them with process. (ECF
No. 70). Therefore, Plaintiff’s claims against the Doe Defendants will be dismissed without
prejudice because he did not identify and serve the Doe Defendants within 90 days of filing the
amended complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). See e.g., Manuel v. Atkins, 545 F. App'x 91, 95
On October 12, 2018, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint alleging that Holmes violated the
Eighth Amendment by failing to act when medical staff refused him treatment for his serious
medical needs, and for deliberate indifference in violation of Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment
right to equal protection of the law, by treating Plaintiff differently from other prisoners.2

II. DISCUSSION
A. Legal Standard for Summary Judgment
A court should grant a motion for summary judgment where the record “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(a). "A factual dispute is material if it bears on an essential element of the
plaintiff's claim, and is genuine if a reasonable jury could find in favor of the nonmoving party."
Blunt v. Lower Merion Sch. Dist., 767 F.3d 247, 265 (3d Cir. 2014) (cleaned up). The moving
party bears the initial burden of “identifying those portions of the pleadings depositions, answers
to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, which it believes

(3d Cir. 2013) (“the District Court properly dismissed all claims against John Doe” because John
Doe was not timely identified or served under Rule 4(m)).
2 Holmes argues that Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process claim is
subsumed by his Eighth Amendment claim under the more specific provision rule. (ECF No.
173-1 at 19-20). However, the more specific provision rule is inapplicable because Plaintiff
alleges a discrimination claim under the Fourteenth Amendment, not a substantive due process
claim based on inadequate medical care. See Wharton v. Danberg, 854 F.3d 234, 246 (3d Cir.
2017) (quoting United States v. Lanier, 520 U.S. 259, 272 n.7 (1997) (describing the “more
specific provision” rule). Plaintiff’s bald allegation that Holmes treated him differently than
other prisoners by taking no action on Plaintiff’s written complaints about his medical care fails
to state a claim. See e.g., Hill v. Borough of Kutztown, 455 F.3d 225, 239 (3d Cir. 2006)
(holding the plaintiff failed to identify similarly-situated individuals who were intentionally
treated differently than himself, without any rational basis). Therefore, this Court will sua
sponte dismiss Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment equal protection claim, with prejudice because
amendment is futile at the summary judgment stage, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)
(“the Court shall dismiss the case at any time, if the Court determines that-- … the action … fails
to state a claim on which relief may be granted….”)
demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S.
317, 323 (1986).
“A party asserting that a fact … is genuinely disputed must support the assertion by:
(A) citing to particular parts of materials in the
record, including depositions, documents,
electronically stored information, affidavits or
declarations, stipulations (including those made for
purposes of the motion only), admissions,
interrogatory answers, or other materials; or

(B) showing that the materials cited do not establish
the absence or presence of a genuine dispute, or that
an adverse party cannot produce admissible evidence
to support the fact.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(A), (B). If a party "fails to properly address another party's assertion of
fact as required by Rule 56(c), the court may … consider the fact undisputed for purposes of the
motion … [or] grant summary judgment if the motion and supporting materials--including the facts
considered undisputed--show that the movant is entitled to it[.]" Blunt, 767 F.3d at 265 (citing
Lauren W. v. DeFlaminis, 480 F.3d 259, 266 (3d Cir. 2007)).
B. Legal Standard for Eighth Amendment Inadequate Medical Care Claim
Supervisors are not vicariously liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for the alleged
constitutional violations of their employees. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 676 (2009).
Therefore, “a plaintiff must plead that each Government-official defendant, through the official's
own individual actions, has violated the Constitution.” Id. In the Third Circuit, “‘a supervisor
may be personally liable ... if he or she participated in violating the plaintiff's rights, directed
others to violate them, or, as the person in charge, had knowledge of and acquiesced in his
subordinates' violations.’” Santiago v. Warminster Twp., 629 F.3d 121, 129 (3d Cir. 2010)
(quoting A.M. ex rel. J.M.K. v. Luzerne Cnty. Juvenile Det. Ctr., 372 F.3d 572, 586 (3d Cir.
2004)). Alternatively, supervisors may be liable “if they ‘established and maintained a policy,
practice or custom which directly caused [the] constitutional harm[.]’” Id. at 121, n. 5.
Deliberate indifference to an inmate’s serious medical needs violates the Eighth
Amendment ban on cruel and unusual punishments. Spruill v. Gillis, 372 F.3d 218, 235 (3d Cir.

2004) (citations omitted). Medical negligence or an inmate’s mere disagreement with the
medical treatment provided is insufficient to establish a Constitutional violation. Id. (citations
omitted). Deliberate indifference exists where: (1) the medical provider intentionally inflicts
pain on the prisoner; (2) prison authorities deny reasonable requests for medical treatment ... and
such denial exposes the inmate to undue suffering or the threat of tangible residual injury; (3)
knowledge of the need for medical care is accompanied by the intentional refusal to provide that
care. Id. (internal quotation marks and quotations omitted). Non-medical prison officials are not
deliberately indifferent based solely on the failure “to respond directly to the medical complaints
of a prisoner who was already being treated by the prison doctor.” Spruill, 372 F.3d at 236
(quoting Durmer v. O'Carroll, 991 F.2d 64, 69 (3d Cir. 1993)). If a prisoner is under the care of

medical experts … a non-medical prison official will generally be justified in believing that the
prisoner is in capable hands.” Id. After the point at which an inmate was first under medical
care, to establish a non-medical prison official’s deliberate indifference, a plaintiff must establish
the official had “reason to believe (or actual knowledge) that prison doctors or their assistants are
mistreating (or not treating)” him. Id. (citing Singletary v. Pa. Dep't of Corr., 266 F.3d 186, 192
n. 2 (3d Cir. 2001)).
C. Undisputed Material Facts
This Court derives the undisputed material facts from Holmes’ Statement of Undisputed
Material Facts (ECF No. 173-2) and Plaintiff’s Counter Statement of Undisputed Material Facts
(ECF No. 178-2). Plaintiff was incarcerated at SWSP on two separate occasions: March 12, 2008,
through August 8, 2010, and June 28, 2011, through February 22, 2012. (ECF No. 173-5 at 16).
In his amended complaint, Plaintiff substituted Defendant Christopher Holmes for SWSP
Administrator Willie J. Bonds. (ECF No. 173-7 at 3).

On or about June 30, 2008, University of Medicine & Dentistry of New Jersey (hereinafter
“UMDNJ”) and the State of New Jersey Department of Corrections entered into an agreement
for inmate healthcare services (“the Agreement.”) (ECF No. 173-8, ¶ 2). The term of the
Agreement was thereafter extended several times. (Id. ¶ 3). While Plaintiff was incarcerated at
SWSP from June 28, 2011, through February 22, 2012, UMDNJ was under contract to provide
medical healthcare to inmates. (Id.)
Plaintiff acknowledged, in his deposition, that he received medical treatment at SWSP and
New Jersey State Prison.3 (ECF No. 173-5 at 60-86). Plaintiff also acknowledged in his deposition
testimony that he saw multiple medical professionals at SWSP, and they treated him with
medication. (Id.) On July 23, 2010, Ombudsman Anthony Thomas, L.P.N. at SWSP, noted on

Plaintiff’s medical record that Plaintiff declined the offer for surgery to fix his hernia while at
SWSP, because he was due to be released soon. (ECF No. 173-5 at 39-40). When Plaintiff
returned home, he obtained a prescription for hernia surgery on October 14, 2010, but he was
incarcerated again before having surgery. (Id. at 41-42; ECF No. 178-7 at 2-4). Plaintiff ultimately
had hernia surgery on July 7, 2014. (Id. at 45).

3 Plaintiff challenges the completeness of his medical records pursuant to the requirements of
N.J.A.C. 10A:16-2.18. Plaintiff discussed his medical records in his deposition, but his medical
records have not been offered in support of Holmes’ motion for summary judgment. (ECF No.
173-4). Therefore, Plaintiff’s challenge to the completeness of his medical records is immaterial
for purposes of summary judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 (c) (2) (“A party may object that the
material cited to support or dispute a fact cannot be presented in a form that would be admissible
in evidence.”)
In a declaration in support of his opposition to summary judgment, Plaintiff states his
lawyer, Jeffrey B. Steinfeld, Esq., contacted Holmes on Plaintiff’s behalf. (ECF No. 178-3, ¶ 4).
Steinfeld provided an affidavit, stating he sent Holmes a letter recounting Plaintiff’s serious
medical needs. (ECF No. 178-6, ¶ 4). In discovery, Steinfeld produced a September 26, 2011

letter he wrote to Holmes. (ECF No. 178-6 at 12-16). The letter described two correction officers
harassing Plaintiff. (Id. at 15-16). The only mention of Plaintiff’s medical condition was that an
officer reassigned Plaintiff to a bunk that he could not get in and out of, due to his back and leg
problems from a prior injury. (Id.) In his affidavit, however, Steinfeld said he made several phone
calls to Holmes about Plaintiff’s hernia, noting he could see Plaintiff’s hernia through his shirt.
(Id., ¶ 5). Steinfeld also said he informed Holmes about Plaintiff’s pain from his hernia and his
other medical problems with his neck, knee and back. (Id., ¶¶ 6, 7). Steinfeld was also aware that
Plaintiff reached out to Holmes himself on many occasions, to no avail. (Id., ¶ 8). In his written
answers to Plaintiff’s deposition questions, Holmes did not recall receiving a letter, fax or phone
call from Steinfeld on September 26, 2011. (ECF No. 173-10 at 29, 31, 40). Holmes’ procedure

for handling medical complaints received by the administration was to forward the complaints to
the medical department. (ECF No. 173-10 at 19, 25, 28). He did not recall receiving complaints
from Plaintiff, his attorney or the medical ombudsman, nor did he recall forwarding any complaints
to the medical department or speaking to anyone in the medical department about Plaintiff. (ECF
No. 173-10 at 30-31, 40-42).
D. Analysis
For his amended complaint against Holmes to survive summary judgment, Plaintiff relies
on a theory that a non-medical prison administrator violates the Eighth Amendment by failing to
take action upon receiving correspondence and/or phone calls from an inmate and the inmate’s
attorney, advising the administrator that the inmate was not receiving adequate medical care from
the prison’s medical professionals. (ECF No. 178). Plaintiff further alleges Holmes’ failure to
have a procedure for reviewing and responding to an inmates’ medical complaints caused Plaintiff
to receive inadequate medical care. (Id.) There are genuine disputed facts over whether Holmes

received correspondence from or spoke to Plaintiff’s attorney about Plaintiff’s medical complaints
and whether Holmes had any knowledge of Plaintiff’s medical care. However, even if Plaintiff
prevailed on these disputed facts, his Eighth Amendment claim against Holmes would fail.
In his Counter Statement of Undisputed Material Facts, Plaintiff explains that he does not
“dispute he received medical treatment at SWSP.” (ECF No. 178-2, ¶ 26). His claim is that he
“needed surgery and he was punished for refusing [surgery] prior to leaving Southwood State
Prison in 2010.” (Id.) In his declaration in opposition to summary judgment, Plaintiff explained
that after he was released from SWSP [in August 2010], he obtained a prescription for hernia
surgery on October 14, 2010. (ECF No. 178-3, ¶ 5; ECF No. 178-7). Before he could have
surgery, he was incarcerated in SWSP again. (ECF No. 178-2, ¶¶ 12-14).

When an inmate is receiving medical treatment from staff, a non-medical prison official is
permitted to assume medical staff are exercising medical judgment. See generally Caterbone v.
Lancaster Cnty. Prison, 811 F. App'x 721, 723 (3d Cir. 2020) (quoting Inmates of Allegheny Jail
v. Pierce, 612 F. 2d 754, 762 (3d Cir. 1979) (“Courts will ‘disavow any attempt to second-guess
the propriety or adequacy of a particular course of treatment ... (which) remains a question of sound
professional judgment.’”)) A non-medical official’s knowledge of and failure to act on an inmate’s
disagreement with the medical treatment provided in prison is insufficient to establish deliberate
indifference to an inmate’s serious medical needs. See Thomas v. Dragovich, 142 F. App'x 33, 39
(3d Cir. 2005) (failure to take any action on an inmate’s correspondence voicing disagreement with
the care provided by medical staff is insufficient to establish an Eighth Amendment claim); Davis
v. Brown, 556 F. App'x 87, 90 (3d Cir. 2014) (non-medical official is not deliberately indifferent
after reading grievance about medical care and deferring to medical judgment); Simonton v.
Tennis, 437 F. App’x 60, 62 (3d Cir. 2011) (“[A] prison official’s secondary review of an

inmate[’]s grievance or appeal is not sufficient to demonstrate the personal involvement required
to establish the deprivation of a constitutional right.”). In summary, the Eighth Amendment does
not require non-medical staff to intervene when an inmate is receiving treatment from medical
personnel. See Parkell v. Danberg, 833 F.3d 313, 336–37 (3d Cir. 2016) (citing Durmer v.
O'Carroll, 991 F.2d 64, 69 (3d Cir. 1993) (holding non-medical defendants are not deliberately
indifferent “simply because they failed to respond directly to the medical complaints of a prisoner
who was already being treated by the prison doctor”); Spruill v. Gillis, 372 F.3d 218, 236 (3d Cir.
2004). Because Plaintiff was receiving medical treatment, he may not hold a non-medical official
liable under the Eighth Amendment.
Holmes is further protected by qualified immunity because clearly established law did not

put him on notice that failure to have procedures in place to forward an inmate’s medical complaint
to the prison’s medical professionals, when the inmate was already receiving medical care, violated
the Eighth Amendment. See Mack v. Yost, 63 F.4th 211, 228 (3d Cir. 2023) (a defendant is entitled
to summary judgment on the second prong of the qualified immunity defense, if he meets his
burden to show that reasonable officials under the circumstances present could not have known
their actions violated clearly established law, viewed with a high degree of specificity); see
Durmer, 991 F.2d at 69 (non-medical officials were not “deliberately indifferent simply because
they failed to respond directly to the medical complaints of a prisoner who was already being
treated by the prison doctor.”) An inmate’s remedy for disagreement with the standard of medical
care provided lies in a medical malpractice action, rather than a civil rights action for violating the
Constitution. See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976) (“Medical malpractice does not
become a constitutional violation merely because the victim is a prisoner.”) For these reasons,
Holmes is entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claim under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed above, Defendant Christopher Holmes 1s entitled to summary
judgment on Plaintiff's amended complaint, and this Court will dismiss the claims against the Doe
Defendants under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).

An appropriate Order follows. ~\

Hon. Susan D. Wigenton —
United States District Judge
Dated: October 1, 2024

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10656831. Public record. Not legal advice.