United States District Court, E.D. Kentucky, Central Division, Lexington
OPINION & ORDER
K. CALDWELL, CHIEF JUDGE
matter is before the Court on defendant Dr. Maria
Marrero's motion to dismiss or, in the alternative,
motion for summary judgment concerning plaintiff Robert
Parr's first amended complaint. (DE 22). For the
following reasons, Dr. Marrero's motion is
lengthy discussion of the facts is not necessary for
disposing of this motion.
was incarcerated at the Federal Medical Center located in
Lexington, Kentucky, from January 21, 2014, until July 10,
2015. He has severe diabetes and alleges that the United
States and Dr. Marrero,  the regional medical director, failed
to provide him with “prompt, reasonable and medically
necessary medical treatment.” (DE 14, First amended
complaint at 1).
brought suit against the United States under the Federal Tort
Claims Act and against Dr. Marrero individually under the
Eighth Amendment. Only Parr's claim concerning Dr.
Marrero is currently before the Court.
initial matter, the Court notes that Parr's claim against
Dr. Marrero is a Bivens action. See Bivens v.
Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics,
403 U.S. 388 (1971). In that case, the Supreme Court
“established that the victims of a constitutional
violation by a federal agent have a right to recover damages
against the official in federal court despite the absence of
any statute conferring such a right.” Carlson v.
Green, 446 U.S. 14, 18 (1980). Bivens claims
are the federal parallel to claims brought under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 against individuals acting under color of state
law. See Robertson v. Lucas, 753 F.3d 606, 614 (6th
Dr. Marrero's motion to dismiss
the Court will analyze Parr's claim through the lens of
Dr. Marrero's motion to dismiss for failure to state a
claim. Such a motion is governed by Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6). That rule is a mechanism to enforce Rule
8, which governs the sufficiency of a complaint. In
determining whether a plaintiff has properly pled a claim,
the Supreme Court has stated that: “[w]hen there are
well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their
veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise
to an entitlement to relief.” Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009).
Parr has alleged that Dr. Marrero violated his Eighth
Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment
by exhibiting deliberate indifference to his medical needs.
Dr. Marrero argues that qualified immunity protects her from
whether Parr's factual allegations plausibly state a
violation of the Eighth Amendment, “[a] prisoner has
adequately stated a cause of action when he alleges that
prison authorities have denied reasonable requests for
medical treatment in the face of an obvious need for such
attention where the inmate is thereby exposed to undue
suffering or the threat of tangible residual injury.”
Scott v. Ambani, 577 F.3d 642, 648 (6th Cir. 2009)
(internal quotation marks omitted).
law establishes that the inquiry into whether a prison
official acted with deliberate indifference has both an
objective and subjective component. Id.
satisfy the objective component, a plaintiff must show that
his medical need is “sufficiently serious.”
Id. A medical need will meet this definition if it
is has been diagnosed by a physician as mandating treatment
or is one that is so obvious that even a lay person would
easily recognize the ...