stating “[t]he MDOC Policy Directive places responsibility in the Bureau of Health Care Service (BHCS) ‘for the Department’s health services program’ and directs BHCS to ‘coordinate and monitor all services’”
How later courts described this case
- stating “[t]he MDOC Policy Directive places responsibility in the Bureau of Health Care Service (BHCS) ‘for the Department’s health services program’ and directs BHCS to ‘coordinate and monitor all services’”
- unpublished; prison officials can be held individually liable “for their failures in their own obligations with regard to developing and implementing policy and custom in such a way that resulted in violations of their Eighth Amendment rights”
- “Monell was . . . concerned with whether local governments were subject to the same immunity from suit under § 1983 as states and state actors in their official capacities.”
- plaintiff failed to establish warden’s personal 26 involvement in inmate’s medical care
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
MOORE, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion. The district judge properly denied qualified immunity to Warden Frank Elo. There is a genuine issue of material fact whether Elo was involved in implementing the prison policy that delivered substandard medical care to prisoners, thereby posing substantial risk of serious medical harm, such as Roscoe Young’s death. Most importantly, in light of Young’s sister’s telephone conversation with Elo informing Elo of inadequate prison medical care for this diabetic prisoner, there is a genuine issue of material fact whether Elo was personally involved in the delivery of inadequate care to Roscoe Young that violated Young’s Eighth Amendment rights. There are material fact questions regarding Elo’s personal knowledge of Young’s grave condition after Elo’s telephone conversation with Young’s sister and regarding Elo’s subsequent actions or inactions. I would affirm the district court’s denial of qualified immunity for Elo.