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.

Mandeville v. Merrimack County Dep't of Corrections

August 22, 2007

MARK MANDEVILLE
v.
MERRIMACK COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, ET AL.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr. United States District Judge

ORDER

Mark Mandeville brings claims under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") and claims under the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, challenging the conditions of his confinement at the Merrimack County Department of Corrections. Several individual defendants move to dismiss the ADA claims against them. Defendants Judy Figueroa and Glennice Poisson move for summary judgment on the claims of constitutionally inadequate medical care brought against them. Mandeville objects to the motions.

I. ADA Claims

Mandeville alleged Title II ADA claims against defendants Carole A. Anderson, Mark Jardullo, Keith Stalker, Brian Prentiss, Dawn Twining, Carol French, Sarah Stuven, Joseph Saucier, Larry Untiet, Steve Mayo, and Donald Andrade. Those defendants move to dismiss on the grounds that Title II addresses liability of public entities not individuals. Mandeville does not dispute the defendants' interpretation of Title II.

Instead, Mandeville argues that he intended to sue those defendants in their official capacities. "A suit against a public official in his official capacity is a suit against the governmental entity itself." Surprenant v. Rivas, 424 F.3d 5, 19 (1st Cir. 2005). The governmental entity involved is the Merrimack County Department of Corrections, which is already a defendant in the case. Therefore, the Title II ADA claims against individual defendants are dismissed, although the allegations made against them are deemed to be part of the ADA claim against the Department.

II. Constitutionally Inadequate Medical Care

Inadequate medical care in a prison violates the Eighth Amendment only if it involves "acts or omissions sufficiently harmful to evidence deliberate indifference to serious medical needs." Feeney v. Correctional Med. Servs., Inc., 464 F.3d 158, 161 (1st Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted). Deliberate indifference may be shown by a denial of medical care for the purpose of punishing an inmate or by a reckless denial of care, which requires "actual knowledge of impending harm, easily preventable." Id. at 162. A pretrial detainee, whose rights are protected under the Fourteenth Amendment, is entitled to at least as much protection as a convicted prisoner. Revere v. Mass. Gen. Hosp., 463 U.S. 239, 244 (1983).

Mandeville, who was a pretrial detainee at the Merrimack County Department of Corrections during 2002, had a painful arthritis condition that was diagnosed in May. In March of 2002, he was prescribed medication, Ultram and Flexeril, for back pain and pain associated with an abscess on his hip. He asserts that the prescribed medication did not adequately control his pain, and he asked for and was given Ibuprofen on several ...


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.