United States District Court, D. Maryland
Xinis, United States District Judge
Olandus Campbell brings this civil rights action pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Division of Correction
(“DOC”) and Patuxent Institution
(“Patuxent”) (collectively, the
“Correctional Defendants”) and Charles Chong-Hwa
Hong, M.D. (“Dr. Hong”), who provides psychiatric
services to prisoners under a contract between his employer
and the Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional
Services (“DPSCS”). Campbell, who is housed at
Patuxent, contends that Defendants violated his right to be
free from cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth
Amendment to the United States Constitution by prescribing to
him multiple psychiatric medications, causing side effects
sufficiently serious to require hospitalization in July of
2017. ECF No. 1 at 4, ECF No. 9 at 1, 2. As damages, Campbell
demands $1, 000, 000. ECF No. 1 at 4.
pending before the Court are Defendants' motions to
dismiss or in the alternative for summary judgment in their
favor. ECF Nos. 14 and 21. The Court has reviewed
the pleadings and finds no hearing necessary. See
Local Rule 105.6 (D. Md. 2016). For the following reasons,
Defendants' dispositive motions are GRANTED.
following facts are not disputed. On April 26, 2016, shortly
after Campbell was transferred to Patuxent, Campbell was
evaluated for complaints of auditory homicidal
hallucinations. ECF No. 21-1 at 186-187. Campbell also
reported suicidal ideation and hallucinations to psychiatrist
Saeed Salehinia who prescribed Campbell
risperidone and Cogentin. Id. at 184. Dr.
Salehinia diagnosed Campbell with major depression with
recurrent psychosis and noted improvement with the
medication. Id. at 185. Campbell was thereafter
prescribed Paxil in addition to the risperidone and
Cogentin. Id. at 185.
3, 2016, Dr. Hong met with Campbell. Dr. Hong noted that
Campbell had been admitted on fifteen prior occasions for
psychiatric illnesses and had been previously diagnosed with
antisocial and borderline personality disorder and
depression. Dr. Hong continued Campbell on Risperdal and
Cogentin. Campbell evidently was also taking Prozac,
dosage of which Dr. Hong increased. Id. at 182-183.
Campbell was also taking Zoloft,  the dosage of which Dr. Hong
also increased when he next saw Campbell on June 24, 2016.
Dr. Hong also prescribed Zyprexa Zydis,  and continued
Campbell on Risperdal and Cogentin. Id. at 181.
continued to meet regularly with psychiatrists, including Dr.
Hong and other staff, over twenty times between June 3, 2016,
and July 6, 2017. See ECF No. 21-1 at 127-183.
Throughout, psychiatric staff adjusted, added, and
discontinued Campbell's medications in an effort to treat
his psychotic episodes while also managing known side
effects. ECF No. 21-1 at 140, 152, 154-157, 159,
161, 163, 165-166, 169-170, 177, 180-181.
July 6, 2017, Campbell was taking the following five
Benztropine Mesylate (Cogentin)
Previously used 09/19/2008 to 03/31/2010
Previously used 09/19/2008 to 10/27/2010
ECF No. 21 at 8; ECF No. 21-1 at 124-125. Campbell also was
receiving medications to control stomach upset (omeprazole
and Tums), dry skin (Lubri-skin), nerve pain
(Gabapentin), asthma (Qvar and albuterol sulfate
Hfa), constipation (colace), dry mouth (Biotene), and other
6, 2017, Campbell saw Nurse Wung Geh, who noted that Campbell
was suffering from body tremors and was confused,
disoriented, and unsteady. ECF No. 21-1 at 123-125. Campbell
was taken by ambulance to Bon Secours Hospital where he was
evaluated and treated. Dr. Hong attests that this evaluation
included brain and abdominal MRI scans (ECF No. 21-2 at
¶ 9), which Campbell denies. ECF No. 16 at 8, 10.
Campbell was admitted to Bon Secours and remained
hospitalized until July 9, 2017. Id. at 117; ECF No.
21-2 at ¶ 9. On July 22, 2017, having returned to
Patuxent, Campbell reported to Dr. Yonas Sisay, M.D. that he
felt well. ECF No. 21-1 at 94.
parties do not dispute that complications from Campbell's
having taken multiple medications likely caused the symptoms
that led to Campbell's emergency hospitalization. ECF No.
16 at 10-12; see also ECF No. 21-1 at 97. As
treatment for this adverse reaction, Campbell was taken off
most psychotropic medications, and as a result, experienced
increased psychotic symptoms including auditory
hallucinations. ECF No. 21-1 at 57, 64, 97. Since
Campbell's release from Bon Secours until the filing of
the Complaint, Campbell has received treatment from mental
health specialists on more than 30 occasions. ECF No. 21-1 at
1-125. During that time, Campbell discontinued psychiatric
treatment with Dr. Hong and his case was reassigned to
another psychiatrist. ECF No. 21-1 at 53; ECF No. 21-2 at
contends that he suffered an array of side effects from
having been prescribed multiple medicines between April 1,
2017 and August 12, 2017, to include substantial weight loss
(28 pounds), lack of appetite, and becoming
“grey” and jaundiced. ECF No. 1 at 5. Campbell
further avers that Dr. Hong “admitted to my sister that
he gave me too much medication two different times, ”
and that Hong knew about Campbell's the loss of appetite.
Id. at 6-7. Campbell has no memory of his
hospitalization at Bon Secours, and disputes such
hospitalization occurred, but does believe he was
“thrown into a bed at Jessup Regional Hospital (JRH)
for 3 days” without sustenance. Id. at 7;
see also ECF No. 16 at 6, ECF No. 23 at 1.
Standard of Review
parties have submitted evidence beyond the four corners of
the Complaint. Accordingly, the Court treats this motion as
one for summary judgment. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(d). Pursuant to
Rule 56(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, summary
judgment shall be granted if the movant shows that no genuine
dispute exists as to any material fact and the movant is
entitled to judgment as a matter of law. “By its very
terms, this standard provides that the mere existence of
some alleged factual dispute between the parties
will not defeat an otherwise properly supported motion for
summary judgment; the requirement is that there be no
genuine issue of material fact.”
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242,
247-48 (1986) (emphasis in original). The non-movant may not
rest upon the mere allegations or denials, but rather must
demonstrate that a genuine triable issue of fact exists.
See Bouchat v. Baltimore Ravens Football Club, Inc.,346 F.3d 514, 525 (4th Cir. 2003). The Court must view the
evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmovant and
draw all ...