Kister v. Bradford (INMATE 1) (CONSENT)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

JOHN ANDREW KISTER, )

#264274, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2:20-cv-828-CWB

)

DR. BRADFORD, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

I. Procedural Background

Plaintiff John Andrew Kister, acting pro se, initiated this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

(Doc. 1). Kister has named Optometrist Dr. Bradford, Bullock Medical Director Dr. Siddiq,

and Alabama Department of Corrections (“ADOC”) Associate Commissioner Ruth Naglich

as defendants (see Docs. 1, 7, & 8) on the allegation that his Eighth Amendment rights were

violated when Dr. Bradford performed “a cursory exam of [his] eyes” and wrote him an inadequate

prescription for eyeglasses (Doc. 1 at pp. 3 & 4). For relief, Kister requests monetary damages

and to be sent “to an eye doctor other than Dr. Bradford to do a complete exam for glasses

and [his] right eye issues.” (Id. at p. 5).

On October 27, 2020, the court issued an Order directing the defendants to file

written reports addressing Kister’s claims. (Doc. 10). Dr. Siddiq filed a Special Report on

November 11, 2020 (Doc. 15); Ruth Naglich filed a Special Report on December 9, 2020

(Doc. 23); and Dr. Bradford filed a Special Report on February 2, 2021 (Doc. 40). Each of the

defendants requested summary judgment and provided the court with various supporting

evidentiary materials (Docs. 15-1 through 15-4; Docs. 23-1 through 23-2; Docs. 40-1 through

40-2). Dr. Siddiq later filed a Supplemental Declaration (Doc. 32), and Dr. Bradford filed a

Supplemental Special Report with additional evidentiary materials (Docs. 47 through 47-2).

The court then directed Kister to file a response to the defendants’ filings and to support

the response with affidavits or statements made under penalty of perjury and/or other evidentiary

materials. (Doc. 48). Kister in turn filed numerous submissions. (Docs. 25, 26, 27, 35, 45, 50, 51,

52, 53, 54, & 55). The defendants subsequently submitted certain additional evidentiary materials.

(Doc. 58).

The parties have been given notice that “the court may at any time [after expiration of the

time for Kister to file a response] and without further notice to the parties (1) treat the special

reports, supplements thereto[,] and any supporting evidentiary materials filed by the defendants as

motions for summary judgment, and (2) after considering any response as allowed by this order,

rule on the dispositive motions in accordance with the law.” (Doc. 48 at p. 3). Pursuant to that

disclosure, the undersigned will now treat the defendants’ Special Reports and supplements as

having presented arguments for summary judgment and will conclude that summary judgment

is due to be granted in the defendants’ favor on all claims.

II. Summary Judgment Standard

Summary judgment is appropriate when the moving party shows that there is no

genuine dispute as to any material fact and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). A dispute “is ‘genuine’ if the record as a whole could lead a reasonable trier

of fact to find for the nonmoving party …. [A fact] is ‘material’ if it might affect the outcome of

the case under the governing law.” Redwing Carriers, Inc. v. Saraland Apartments, 94 F.3d 1489,

1496 (11th Cir. 1996) (citation omitted).

The party moving for summary judgment “always bears the initial responsibility of

informing the district court of the basis for the motion.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317,

323 (1986). That responsibility includes identifying the portions of the record illustrating the

absence of a genuine dispute of material fact. Id. Alternatively, a movant who does not have a

trial burden of production can simply assert that the nonmoving party “cannot produce admissible

evidence to support the fact.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(B); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 56

advisory committee’s note (“Subdivision (c)(1)(B) recognizes that a party need not always point

to specific record materials. … [A] party who does not have the trial burden of production may

rely on a showing that a party who does have the trial burden cannot produce admissible evidence

to carry its burden as to the fact.”). Under either scenario, the burden then shifts to the nonmoving

party to establish that a genuine dispute of material fact exists as to each element of the underlying

claims. See Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 324; Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(A).

To establish a genuine dispute of material fact, the nonmoving party must produce such

evidence as would be sufficient for a reasonable trier of fact to return a verdict in its favor.

See Waddell v. Valley Forge Dental Assocs., Inc., 276 F.3d 1275, 1279 (11th Cir. 2001). When

evaluating whether a genuine dispute of material fact exists, the court must view all of the

evidence in a light most favorable to the nonmovant and draw all justifiable inferences from the

evidence in the nonmovant’s favor. See McCormick v. City of Fort Lauderdale, 333 F.3d 1234,

1243 (11th Cir. 2003); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). Nonetheless, “[w]hen opposing parties tell

two different stories, one of which is blatantly contradicted by the record, so that no reasonable

jury could believe it, a court should not adopt that version of the facts for purposes of ruling on a

motion for summary judgment.” Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380 (2007).

Although pro se complaints are entitled to liberal interpretation, a pro se litigant is not

relieved from the burden of demonstrating a genuine dispute of material fact. Beard v. Banks,

548 U.S. 521, 525 (2006); Brown v. Crawford, 906 F.2d 667, 670 (11th Cir. 1990).

III. Relevant Facts1

The verified Complaint sets out the core facts as follows:

1. I am in the Residential Treatment Unit at Bullock Corr. Facility (“BCF”).

2. The Alabama Dept. of Corrections contracts with area specialists to see

prisoners at each prison.

3. For eye care, the contracted doctor at BCF is Dr. Bradford.

4. After months of delay, I saw Dr. Bradford here at BCF September 21, 2020.

5. I saw him to correct faulty glasses he gave me in March 2020.

6. I am also having blurry vision and a red [] splotch in my right eye field of vision.

7. I tried to bring up my right eye issues, but my complaints were ignored by

Dr. Bradford, who also called me a liar twice.

8. He only did a cursory exam of my eyes.

(Doc. 1 at p. 4). In sworn declarations attached to their respective Special Reports, Dr. Bradford,

Dr. Siddiq, and Associate Commissioner Naglich counter with the averments set out below.

1 The facts as set out herein are derived from the verified Complaint (Doc. 1), the sworn evidentiary

materials provided by the defendants (Docs. 15-1 through 15-4; Docs. 23-1 through 23-2; Doc. 32;

Docs. 40-1 through 40-2; Doc. 47; Doc. 58), and Plaintiff’s verified filings in response

(Docs. 25-1 through 25-5; Doc. 52; Doc. 54). Although Kister submitted additional filings

(Docs. 25, 26, 27, 35, 45, 50, 51, 53, & 55), they were neither sworn nor verified in accordance

with 28 U.S.C. § 1746 and thus cannot be considered. See, e.g., Roy v. Ivy, 53 F.4th 1338, 1347

(11th Cir. 2022) (“Unsworn statements may not be considered by a district court in evaluating

a motion for summary judgment.”) (citing Carr v. Tatangelo, 338 F.3d 1259, 1273 n.26

(11th Cir. 2003)). As such, what are deemed facts at this stage are merely for purposes of resolving

summary judgment and may not constitute the actual facts. See Cox v. Adm’r U.S. Steel &

Carnegie, 17 F.3d 1386, 1400 (11th Cir. 1994), opinion modified on reh’g, 30 F.3d 1347

(11th Cir. 1994) (“[W]hat we state as ‘facts’ … for purposes of reviewing the rulings on the

summary judgment motion [] may not be the actual facts.”).

Dr. Bradford first evaluated Kister at Elmore Correctional Facility on March 11, 2020.

(Doc. 47-2 at p. 4, ¶ 7). Dr. Bradford performed a full dilated eye exam, using an auto-refractor

and indirect ophthalmoscope, and determined that Kister was near-sighted with an astigmatism.

(Id.). Dr. Bradford ordered prescription eyeglasses for Kister based upon his examination. (Id.).

The prescription was: OD -3.75 075 x 003; OS -2.75 075 176 with bifocals. (Id.). During the

examination, Dr. Bradford also checked Kister’s intraocular pressure using a tonometer, and he

found that Kister’s intraocular pressure was within normal limits. (Id. at ¶ 8). Dr. Bradford

thereafter was not permitted entry into any Alabama state correctional facility due to COVID-19

restrictions until being permitted to return for a brief period in the late summer/early fall of 2020.

(Id.).

On September 21, 2020, Kister again saw Dr. Bradford at Bullock Correctional Facility

with complaints of eye problems and needing new eyeglasses. (Id. at p. 4, ¶ 10). Dr. Bradford

again performed a full dilated eye exam using an auto-refractor and an indirect ophthalmoscope

and ordered prescription eyeglasses for Kister. (Id.). The prescription was: OD -3.50 100 x 178;

OS -2.25 100 167 with bifocals. (Id.). Dr. Bradford again checked Kister’s intraocular pressure

using a tonometer and again found that Kister’s intraocular pressure was within normal limits.

(Id. at p. 5, ¶ 11). Dr. Bradford did not note any red splotch in Plaintiff’s vision, which would

have been indicative of blood in the eye. (Id. at ¶ 12).

Kister received the second set of prescribed eyeglasses on October 2, 2020. (Doc. 15-1 at

p. 3; see also Doc. 15-2 at p. 1). Upon receipt of his new eyeglasses, Kister informed the

medical staff at Bullock Correctional Facility that the eyeglasses did not help. (Doc. 15-1 at p. 3).

Kister further stated that he was not satisfied with the services performed by Dr. Bradford. (Id.).

Accordingly, an appointment was scheduled for Kister in Dothan, Alabama (Id.), and Kister

was seen at Eye Center South on December 14, 2020. (Doc. 32-1 at p. 3; Doc. 32-2 at p. 1).

Eye Center South recommended that Kister undergo a cataract evaluation in six months. (Id.).

However, no further evaluation or treatment was recommended. (Id.). Kister promptly was

scheduled for the recommended appointment. (Id.).

On September 22, 2020, Kister filled out an inmate grievance form to assert the following

allegations:

I saw Dr. Bradford, the eye doctor, September 21, 2020. He was very rude to me,

calling me a liar twice: once when I told him I could not see out of the glasses he

made for me in March 2020; and again when I told him I gave those glasses back

to a nurse in the RTU. He also ignored me when I told him of issues with my right

eye—blurry vision and a red “splotch” I can see; doing only a cursory exam. The

exam for my glasses also seemed incomplete—especially the bifocal part. I need

to see an eye doctor who will do a complete exam of my right eye, and of my sight

for glasses with bifocals.

(Doc. 58 at p. 6). Kister subsequently filed an inmate grievance appeal on October 9, 2020:

I feel this is an urgent issue. My right eye symptoms have been going on for months.

I need to be sent out to an eye doctor who will do a thorough exam on my right eye;

and a thorough exam for my glasses and bifocals. Someone other than Dr. Bradford

who has now (intentionally) made me 2 pair of glasses I cannot see properly out of.

(Id. at p. 7).

Kister also submitted several Sick Call Request forms. The first, dated October 2, 2020,

states: “I received a pair of glasses today. I cannot see properly out of them. This was

Dr. Bradford’s second attempt to prescribe me glasses. They are not strong enough, and

neither are the bifocals. I need to see another eye doctor.” (Doc. 25-4). The second, dated

October 24, 2020, states: “I am still having problems. 2 successive pair of glasses made by

Dr. Bradford I cannot properly see out of. Plus my right eye is blurry and I can see a red “splotch!”

I need to see a provider—not Dr. Bradford.” (Doc. 25-5). The third, dated December 21, 2020,

states: “I need to see Dr. Siddiq. I need glasses! Dr. Bradford has twice made me glasses I cannot

see out of properly. I need to see someone who can properly make me glasses I can see with—

someone other than Dr. Bradford.” (Doc. 52-1). The fourth, dated January 15, 2021, states:

“I need glasses! (That I can see out of—been trying to get some for almost a year).” (Doc. 52-2).

And the fifth, dated January 16, 2021, states: “I need glasses still, please, I can’t see very well out

of the ones I have (couldn’t make yesterday sick call, was sick to stomache [sic].” (Doc. 52-3).

Finally, in a declaration submitted in response to the defendants’ filings, Kister additionally

avers as follows:

1. I wear eyeglasses.

2. I requested new glasses because the glasses I currently have are 7 years old and

I cannot see properly out of them anymore.

3. I saw Dr. Bradford in March of 2020. He made me a prescription for eyeglasses.

4. I could not properly see out of the glasses that were made.

5. I again saw Dr. Bradford in September of 2020, after months of delay, to correct

the prescription given to me in March 2020.

6. He again wrote me a prescription, and again I could not properly see out of the

glasses.

7. When I told Dr. Bradford about blurry vision and a red splotch in my right eye,

he ignored me.

8. When I told him I could not properly see out of the pair of glasses made from

his first prescription, he called me a liar.

9. Dr. Bradford was deliberately indifferent to my serious medical needs.

10. Ruth Naglich is responsible for contracting with vendors for our healthcare

needs.

11. She contracted with Wexford Health Sources, who in turn contracted with

Dr. Bradford.

12. She is accountable for the deliberate indifference of Dr. Bradford.

13. I have been at Bullock Correctional Facility since July 20, 2020.

14. Dr. Tahir Siddiq is the medical doctor here.

15. As of the date of this document, I still do not have new glasses.

16. Dr. Siddiq is accountable to ensure I have adequate health care.

17. Going several months without proper eye glasses is inadequate care.

18. Dr. Siddiq is aware I need new glasses. He has failed to procure me an

appointment with a doctor capable of prescribing glasses I can see out of.

19. He is deliberately indifferent to my eye care needs, as far as glasses are

concerned.

20. Dr. Siddiq did send me to Eye Center South in response to my complaint of

blurry vision and a red splotch in my right eye.

21. However, he did not request or order an eye exam for glasses, so none was done.

22. This with the knowledge that I need new glasses; and that Dr. Bradford had

written 2 failed prescriptions for glasses.

23. Dr. Siddiq was deliberately indifferent to my serious medical need of new

glasses.

(Doc. 54 at pp. 1-2; see also Doc. 35: acknowledging examination by Dothan Eye Clinic but

complaining about lack of new glasses). Kister remained without new eyeglasses as of

February 2021. (Doc. 52).2

IV. Discussion

A. The court must narrowly construe Kister’s present claims so as to avoid

duplicative litigation.

“An action may be dismissed as malicious or frivolous if it duplicates claims raised by

the same plaintiff in previous or pending litigation.” Bagby v. Karriker, 555 F. App’x 405, 406

2 The record is silent as to whether Kister ultimately received eyeglasses that were to his

satisfaction.

(5th Cir. 2014) (citations omitted) (affirming the dismissal of a complaint as malicious and

frivolous because it was duplicative of a prior action, as “[t]he two suits raised similar claims

that fairly may be viewed as arising ‘from the same series of events’”).3 Here, it appears that

Kister previously filed similar claims against Dr. Siddiq and Associate Commissioner Naglich

regarding the same subject matter as the claims at issue in this case. See Kister v. Naglich, et al.,

No. 2:20-cv-758-WKW-CSC (M.D. Ala. 2020). Kister contends, however, that his prior

“similar case” was “about delay of months to see eye doctor,” while the present case “is about the

doctor who finally saw [him] being deliberate[ly] indifferent.” (Doc. 1 at p. 1).

Although the present case fairly could be said to arise “from the same series of events”

addressed in Kister’s previous case, see Bagby, 555 F. App’x at 406, and “alleg[es] many of the

same facts,” see Bailey, 846 F.2d at 1021, considering Kister’s status as a pro se litigant and his

assertion that he is not seeking to bring duplicative claims in this case, the court will consider

Kister’s present claims but will narrowly construe Kister’s allegations as purporting to state claims

based upon the adequacy, rather than the timeliness, of the treatment he received.

3 See also Bailey v. Johnson, 846 F.2d 1019, 1021 (5th Cir. 1988) (finding that district court did

not abuse its discretion in dismissing an action as duplicative of prior litigation containing the same

claims but against different defendants and noting that “we have dismissed an appeal as frivolous

because it involved a duplicative action arising from the same series of events and alleging many

of the same facts as an earlier suit, concluding that ‘[r]epetitious litigation of virtually identical

causes of action is subject to dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) as malicious’”) (citation

omitted); Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1105 n.2 (9th Cir. 1995) (“There is no abuse of

discretion where a district court dismisses under § 1915(d) a complaint ‘that merely repeats

pending or previously litigated claims.’”) (citation omitted); Perry v. Culliver, No. 12-231,

2012 WL 1994917, *2 (S.D. Ala. Apr. 23, 2012) (dismissing a duplicative action as malicious

when the same allegations were made but against different defendants).

B. Kister has failed to present a genuine dispute of material fact on his claim for

deliberate indifference.

“The Eighth Amendment’s proscription of cruel and unusual punishments prohibits

prison officials from exhibiting deliberate indifference to prisoners’ serious medical needs.”

Campbell v. Sikes, 169 F.3d 1353, 1363 (11th Cir. 1999) (citing Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97,

104 (1976)). In order to establish “deliberate indifference to [a] serious medical need ...,

[a p]laintiff[] must show: (1) a serious medical need; (2) the defendant[’s] deliberate indifference

to that need; and (3) causation between that indifference and the plaintiff’s injury.” Mann v.

Taser Int’l, Inc., 588 F.3d 1291, 1306-07 (11th Cir. 2009). The standard consists of both objective

and subjective components. See Taylor v. Adams, 221 F.3d 1254, 1258 (11th Cir. 2000)

(explaining that an inmate is required to show “an objectively serious need, an objectively

insufficient response to that need, subjective awareness of facts signaling the need and an actual

inference of required action from those facts”); see also Keohane v. Florida Dept. of Corrs. Sec.,

952 F.3d 1257, 1266 (11th Cir. 2020) (“A prisoner bringing a deliberate-indifference claim has a

steep hill to climb.”). Kister asserts that the defendants acted with deliberate indifference via the

allegedly “cursory” examination performed by Dr. Bradford.

A serious medical need is “one that has been diagnosed by a physician as mandating

treatment or one that is so obvious that even a lay person would easily recognize the necessity for

a doctor’s attention.” Farrow v. West, 320 F.3d 1235, 1243 (11th Cir. 2003) (quoting Hill v.

Dekalb Reg'l Youth Det. Ctr., 40 F.3d 1176, 1187 (11th Cir. 1994)). “In either of these situations,

the medical need must be one that, if left unattended, pos[es] a substantial risk of serious harm.”

Id. (quotation marks and citation omitted); Taylor, 221 F.3d at 1258.

Although an unconstitutional level of “deliberate indifference” does not require a showing

that the defendant acted purposefully to cause harm, it clearly does involve something beyond

mere negligent conduct. Chandler v. Crosby, 379 F.3d 1278, 1289-90 (11th Cir. 2004).4

Accordingly, a plaintiff must show “an objectively ‘serious medical need[]’ ... and second, that the

response made by [the defendant] to that need was poor enough to constitute ‘an unnecessary and

wanton infliction of pain,’ and not merely accidental inadequacy, ‘negligen[ce] in diagnos[is] or

treat[ment],’ or even ‘[m]edical malpractice’ actionable under state law.” Taylor, 221 F.3d at 1258

(internal citations omitted); see also Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 330-33 (1986) (“The facts

alleged must do more than contend medical malpractice, misdiagnosis, accidents, [or] poor

exercise of medical judgment.”). Stated differently, “deliberate indifference has three components:

(1) subjective knowledge of a risk of serious harm; (2) disregard of that risk; (3) by conduct that

is more than mere negligence.” Farrow, 320 F.3d at 1245. Nothing in the record would support

such findings.

i. Associate Commissioner Naglich

Kister has presented no facts to support his claim that Naglich acted with deliberate

indifference toward his medical needs. It instead appears that Naglich was named as a defendant

solely upon her position as Associate Commissioner for the Alabama Department of Corrections.

There is nothing in the record to suggest that Naglich had personal familiarity with Kister’s

medical needs, had involvement with decisions regarding his medical treatment, impeded his

access to medical care, or attempted to intercede, overrule, or influence any decisions made by

medical personnel. Absent such evidence, Kister simply cannot hold Naglich liable for the acts

or omissions of medical professionals:

4 Whether the proper standard is “more than mere negligence” or “more than gross negligence” is

currently up for debate. See Wade v. McDade, 67 F.4th 1363, 1371-72 (11th Cir. 2023),

reh'g en banc granted, opinion vacated sub nom. Wade v. Ga. Corr. Health, LLC, 83 F.4th 1332

(11th Cir. 2023). To err on the side of caution, the “more than mere negligence” standard will be

applied in this instance.

The law does not impose upon correctional officials a duty to directly supervise

health care personnel, to set treatment policy for the medical staff or to intervene in

treatment decisions where they have no actual knowledge that intervention is

necessary to prevent a constitutional wrong. See Vinnedge v. Gibbs, 550 F.2d 926

(4th Cir. 1977) (a medical treatment claim cannot be brought against managing

officers of a prison absent allegations that they were personally connected with the

alleged denial of treatment). Moreover, “supervisory [correctional] officials are

entitled to rely on medical judgments made by medical professionals responsible

for prisoner care. See, e.g., Durmer v. O'Carroll, 991 F.2d 64, 69 (3d Cir. 1993);

White v. Farrier, 849 F.2d 322, 327 (8th Cir. 1988).” Williams v. Limestone County,

Ala., 198 Fed. Appx. 893, 897 (11th Cir. 2006).

Cameron v. Allen, 525 F. Supp. 2d 1302, 1307 (M.D. Ala. 2007); see also Spruill v. Gillis,

372 F.3d 218, 236 (3d Cir. 2004) (absent a reason to believe, or actual knowledge, that medical

staff is administering inadequate medical care, non-medical prison personnel are not chargeable

with the Eighth Amendment scienter requirement of deliberate indifference).

The law indeed is well settled that liability in a § 1983 action may not be based upon

theories of respondeat superior or vicarious liability. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 676

(2009) (stating that “[g]overnment officials may not be held liable for the unconstitutional conduct

of their subordinates under the theory of respondeat superior”); see also Cottone v. Jenne,

326 F.3d 1352, 1358 (11th Cir. 2003) (holding that “supervisory officials are not liable under

§ 1983 for the unconstitutional acts of their subordinates on the basis of respondeat superior or

vicarious liability”), abrogated in part on other grounds by Randall v. Scott, 610 F.3d 701

(11th Cir. 2010); Marsh v. Butler County, Ala., 268 F.3d 1014, 1028-29 (11th Cir. 2001) (holding

that a supervisory official “can have no respondeat superior liability for a section 1983 claim”),

abrogated on other grounds by Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007); Gonzalez v. Reno,

325 F.3d 1228, 1234 (11th Cir. 2003) (concluding that supervisory officials are not liable on the

basis of respondeat superior or vicarious liability); Hartley v. Parnell, 193 F.3d 1263, 1269

(11th Cir. 1999) (holding that 42 U.S.C. § 1983 does not allow a plaintiff to hold supervisory

officials liable for the actions of their subordinates under either a theory of respondeat superior or

vicarious liability).

Liability can attach to supervisory personnel only if they “personally participate[d] in the

alleged unconstitutional conduct or [if] there is a causal connection between [their] actions … and

the alleged constitutional deprivation.” Cottone, 326 F.3d at 1360; see also Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 677

(“Absent vicarious liability, each Government official, his or her title notwithstanding, is only

liable for his or her own misconduct.”). To establish a causal connection without direct

participation, a plaintiff must present sufficient evidence of either “a history of widespread abuse

[that] put[] [the defendants] on notice of the need to correct the alleged deprivation, and [they]

fail[ed] to do so” or “a … custom or policy [that] result[ed] in deliberate indifference to

constitutional rights, or ... facts [that] support an inference that the supervisor directed the

subordinates to act unlawfully or knew that the subordinates would act unlawfully and failed to

stop them from doing so.” Cottone, 326 F.3d at 1360 (internal punctuation and citations omitted).

After extensive review of the pleadings and evidentiary materials, the undersigned concludes that

Kister has failed to present any evidence in that regard.5

ii. Dr. Bradford

The record is undisputed that Kister was first examined by Dr. Bradford in March 2020

with complaints that his pre-existing pair of glasses were outdated. (Doc. 47-2 at p. 4, ¶ 7).

5 Even if a genuine issue of fact existed as to whether Naglich acted with deliberate indifference,

she nonetheless would be entitled to sovereign immunity to the extent she is being sued for

monetary damages in her official capacity. See Kister v. Naglich, No. 2:20-cv-758-CSC,

2023 WL 4036146, *3 (M.D. Ala. June 15, 2023) (“[T]o the extent Kister sues the correctional

defendants in their official capacities, as state actors, they are entitled to sovereign immunity under

the Eleventh Amendment for claims seeking monetary damages.”) (citations omitted). Not only

that, Naglich additionally would be entitled to qualified immunity to the extent she is being sued

for monetary damages in her individual capacity. Id. at *4-7 (holding that Naglich was protected

by qualified immunity as to a virtually identical claim brought by Kister).

It additionally is undisputed that Dr. Bradford issued Kister a new prescription at that time

(Id.) and that Kister received replacement glasses (Doc. 1 at p. 4). It further is undisputed that

Kister was seen again by Dr. Bradford in September 2020 due to dissatisfaction with his new

glasses and that after a second examination Dr. Bradford issued Kister yet another updated

prescription (Doc. 47-2 at pp. 4-5, ¶ 10). Kister acknowledges that he received new glasses but

asserts that they were too weak. (Doc. 54).

Given that Kister at all times possessed a preexisting pair of glasses he had utilized for a

number of years, and given that the evidence reflects those glasses provided “visual acuities of

20/30 in the right eye and 20/40 in the left eye,” the undersigned cannot conclude on the current

record that Kister has presented a genuine issue of material fact as to whether he was facing an

objectively serious medical need when seen by Dr. Bradley or that Dr. Bradley responded in

an objectively unreasonable manner. See Harris v. Thigpen, 941 F.2d 1495, 1505 (11th Cir. 1991)

(stating that only medical treatment that is “so grossly incompetent, inadequate, or excessive as to

shock the conscience or to be intolerable to fundamental fairness” violates the Eighth Amendment)

(quotation marks and citation omitted); Hoffer v. Sec’y, Fla. Dep’t of Corr., 973 F.3d 1263,

1271 (11th Cir. 2020) (“With respect to prisoners’ medical care … we have held that the

Eighth Amendment doesn’t require it to be ‘perfect, the best obtainable, or even very good.’”)

(citation omitted).

The record likewise fails to reflect a genuine issue of material fact on the subjective prong.

The evidence is undisputed that Dr. Bradford evaluated Kister’s vision twice, performed standard

examinations to assess Kister’s vision needs, and prescribed glasses to address Kister’s vision

impairments. There is nothing in the record to suggest that Dr. Bradford had subjective knowledge

that the prescribed glasses would place Kister at risk of serious harm and/or that he disregarded

such a risk. See Farrow, 320 F.3d at 1245. Moreover, the record demonstrates that Dr. Bradford

did not note any red splotch during his examinations that he believed to warrant treatment.

Although Kister asserts that the glasses he was prescribed were not strong enough and that his

complaints regarding a red splotch were ignored, any such potential deficiencies cannot under

the circumstances be deemed anything more than negligence and would not rise to the level of

“so grossly incompetent, inadequate, or excessive as to shock the conscience or to be intolerable

to fundamental fairness.” Harris, 941 F.2d at 1505; see also Adams v. Poag, 61 F.3d 1537,

1545-46 (11th Cir.1995) (explaining that whether medical personnel “should have employed

additional diagnostic techniques or forms of treatment ‘is a classic example of a matter for

medical judgment’ and therefore not an appropriate basis for grounding liability under the

Eighth Amendment”); Estelle, 429 U.S. 106 (“[A] complaint that a physician has been negligent

in diagnosing or treating a medical condition does not state a valid claim of medical mistreatment

under the Eighth Amendment.”).

iii. Dr. Siddiq

With respect to Kister’s claims against Dr. Siddiq, the undisputed evidence demonstrates

that Dr. Siddiq responded to Kister’s continued complaints about Dr. Bradford’s treatment of

his vision—including the effectiveness of his two pairs of replacement glasses—by referring

Kister to a third-party provider. (Doc. 32-1 at p. 3; Doc. 32-2 at p. 1). Therefore, even if Kister

arguably could show the existence of a serious medical need during the relevant period, he still

has failed to present a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Dr. Siddiq responded in an

objectively unreasonable manner. The undisputed evidence likewise demonstrates that Dr. Siddiq

further arranged for Kister to undergo a cataract evaluation as recommended by that provider.

(Doc. 32-1 at p. 3). Under the totality of circumstances, the court concludes that Kister has failed

to present a genuine dispute of material fact that Dr. Siddiq had subjective knowledge of any risk

of serious harm or that Dr. Siddiq disregarded such a risk. See Farrow, 320 F.3d at 1245; see also

Cottrell v. Caldwell, 85 F.3d 1480, 1491 (11th. Cir. 1996) (“There is no liability for ‘an official’s

failure to alleviate a significant risk that he should have perceived but did not ... .””) (quoting

Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 838 (1994)); see also Campbell, 169 F.3d at 1370. In any event,

given Dr. Siddiq’s actions in arranging outside medical care, his other actions/inactions could not

be deemed anything more than mere negligence. See Williams v. Arnold, 207 F. App’x 980, 985

(11th Cir. 2006).

V. Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, Kister has failed to submit sufficient evidence to create a triable

issue of fact on claims that one or more of the defendants violated his Eighth Amendment rights.

It therefore is ORDERED that the defendants’ construed motions for summary judgment

(Does. 15, 23, & 40) are GRANTED. A final judgment will be entered separately.

DONE this the 15th day of March 2024.

(hfe

| .

CHAD W. BRYAN

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

16