Estate of Miller v. Marberry

Dist. Ct. did not err in granting defendants-prison officials’ motion for summary judgment in section 1983 action alleging that defendants were deliberately indifferent to his need for assignment to lower bunk bed under circumstances where plaintiff fell from his top bunk bed on two occasions, which ultimately led to him breaking his back on second fall. Record showed that neither defendant was responsible for bunk bed assignments. Moreover, Ct. rejected plaintiff’s claim that it was enough for him to allege that he told defendants that he had brain tumor which required lower bunk bed assignment, where: (1) plaintiff’s mere mention of brain tumor, without more, was insufficient to convey existence of serious medical condition; (2) instant defendants could not verify plaintiff’s claims; and (3) plaintiff had failed to complain to appropriate prison official who was in charge of bed assignments and who had access to database that contained information about said assignments. Also, plaintiff could not bring instant Bivens action based on claim that defendants did nothing in response to plaintiff’s complaint about someone’s conduct. (Dissent filed.)