Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Scott v. Haun

United States District Court, W.D. Kentucky, Louisville Division

April 30, 2019

AVREN LAMONT SCOTT, Plaintiff,
v.
MIKE HAUN et al., Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

          DAVID J. HALE, JUDGE.

         This matter is before the Court on the motion for summary judgment by Defendants Mike Haun and Frederick Kemen (Docket No. 50). Proceeding pro se, Plaintiff filed a response to the motion (DN 54). Defendants did not file a reply. For the reasons that follow, the motion for summary judgment will be denied.

         I

         Plaintiff was an inmate at the Kentucky State Reformatory (KSR) at the time pertinent to the complaint. Upon initial review of the action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the Court allowed Plaintiff's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims under the Eighth Amendment to proceed against Defendant Haun, whom Plaintiff identified as a nurse practitioner at KSR, and Defendant Kemen, identified as a doctor at KSR, in their individual capacities.

         In the verified complaint, Plaintiff stated that on January 20, 2016, Defendant Kemen “wrote an order for the Plaintiff to be catheterized, with out the consent of the Plaintiff and with no medical reason.” He asserted that Defendant Kemen's “unlawfull actions violated the Plaintiff United State's constitutional rights by causeing pain and injury.”

         Plaintiff further stated that Defendant Haun “placed a catheter in plaintiff bladder with no medical reason. This was done against the consent of the plaintiff and was only done to cause cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the plaintiff United States' constitutional right to be free of such punishment.” Plaintiff maintained that the catheter was “put in plaintiff's bladder to attempt him from throughing urain and so he could be kept in restraints longer. The institution has a mental health unit to deal with mental health inmates and the record will clearly show that this was done maliciously and sadistically and against the Constitution.”

         Plaintiff attached to his complaint a grievance he filed on January 28, 2016, in which he stated the following:

On Jan. 20th I was in Nursing Care strapped in 4 points and I was forced with a catheter inside me in their was no medical reason why I should got a catheter in it hurt a lot and painful in Dr. Mike then force[]d me with a catheter and Nurse Sue an I told him no you ain't got my consent to catheter.

         In a February 26, 2016, response to the grievance, under the heading “Informal Resolution Stage, ” a KSR staff member wrote, “Order entered by Mike Haun on 1/20/16 for IM to have foley catheter placed due to IM being a cutter and threatening staff. Foley catheter anchored so he couldn't throw urine on staff.” Plaintiff also attached his grievance appeal, which shows that the Grievance Committee agreed with the informal resolution and that Plaintiff then appealed to the Warden. Under the heading “Warden's Review, ” signed on March 23, 2016, is the following finding:

I have reviewed the grievance, responses and appeal and concur with the informal resolution in that ARNP Mike Haun, in consultation with Dr. Frederick Kemen, authorized the Foley Catheter due to the grievant's continued self-harming and assaultive behavior. It appears that the Medical staff decision was made in an attempt to be able to keep the grievant in continued soft restraints so that he could not have the ability to further self-harm, thus allowing him to heal from previously self-inflicted wounds. Additionally, maintaining the grievant in the soft restraints prevented him from using urine as a weapon against staff.

         Plaintiff appealed to the Kentucky Department of Corrections Commissioner's Office. The Ombudsman responded on April 11, 2016, stating that he was sending the grievance back to the institution “to be re-processed as a medical grievance.”

         In response to Plaintiff's medical grievance, on July 19, 2016, under the heading “Informal Resolution Response, ” Defendant Kemen stated the following:

A review of your medical record revealed that you were admitted to the nursing care facility from 12/30/2015 until 1/21/2015 for treatment of multiple self-inflicted lacerations. At times you were in four-point restraints to keep you from further injuring yourself. On 1/20/2016 Mike Haun, FNP, catheterized your bladder in order to prevent you from further assaulting [Nursing Care Facility] staff by throwing urine on them. Mr. Haun had obtained clearance for his plan before approaching you.
After later review of the events of 11/20/2016, I spoke with Mr. Haun and informed him that bladder catheterization will not be done in the future unless a clear medical ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.