Snoddy v. Pryor

1

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

No. 115,122

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS

MILTON SNODDY,
Appellant,

v.

REX PRYOR,
Warden,
Lansing Correctional Facility,
Appellee.


MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appeal from Leavenworth District Court; GUNNAR A. SUNDBY, judge. Opinion filed October 7,
2016. Affirmed.

Michael G. Highland, of Bonner Springs, for appellant.

Sherri Price, special assistant attorney general, of Lansing Correctional Facility, for appellee.

Before BRUNS, P.J., POWELL, J., and STUTZMAN, S.J.

Per Curiam: Milton Snoddy, an inmate at the Lansing Correctional Facility
(Lansing), appeals the district court's decision denying his K.S.A. 60-1501 petition
following an evidentiary hearing. After the hearing, the district court issued a
memorandum decision explaining its ruling. Ultimately, it found that Snoddy had failed
to sustain his burden of proof. We agree. Specifically, we find that Snoddy has failed to
establish that Lansing officials acted with a deliberate indifference to his medical needs.
Thus, we affirm.

2

FACTS

On March 4, 2013, Snoddy filed an inmate grievance form alleging that he
received inadequate care at the Lansing medical clinic when he was sick with the flu
and/or bronchitis. Snoddy alleged that he had been examined by an Advance Practice
Registered Nurse (APRN) on February 28, 2013, who determined that he had "a bad case
of the Flu." Evidently, the APRN ordered that he receive antibiotics for 5 days. Although
he received his first two doses of antibiotics, Snoddy alleges that he was told there were
no more antibiotics available when he returned for his third dose and that he should come
back the next day. Further, Snoddy alleges that he was told that there was no order for
him to receive additional antibiotics when he returned the next day.

Apparently Snoddy's grievance was sent to the Secretary of the Department of
Corrections (Secretary) for a response. On March 19, 2013, the designee of the Secretary
issued a "Grievance-Response on Appeal," which stated:

"In February 2013 the inmate was seen and diagnosed with acute bronchitis and
medication was ordered. Saline nasal spray was renewed. A double dose of antibiotics
were ordered for 5 days. The inmate was given his second dose when he was told that
there were no orders for more medication. The inmate refused to start on statin for his
cholesterol, no show for blood pressure check. No show for his follow up visit for
bronchitis."

The Secretary's designee also noted that the "Department's Physician Contract
Monitor Consultant" who reviewed the matter had concerns regarding lack of
documentation and medication orders but found that Snoddy appeared stable and had no
long term side effects from not receiving all of the antibiotics ordered. As for action
taken, the designee noted: "I have been advised that a recommendation for corrective
action will be forwarded to CCS Regional Medical Director."

3

On May 6, 2013, Snoddy filed a K.S.A. 60-1501 petition. Snoddy did not make
any factual allegations on the face of the petition. He did, however, attach a copy of the
grievance form, the Secretary's response, and a letter dated April 19, 2013. In the letter,
Snoddy had expressed his concerns about how his grievance had been handled and his
disagreement with the findings.

Subsequently, the district court issued a writ of habeas corpus and ordered Lansing
to respond to the petition. On August 22, 2013, Lansing filed a motion to dismiss
Snoddy's petition. A few weeks later, the district court appointed an attorney to represent
Snoddy. The attorney filed a response to the motion to dismiss on October 17, 2013.

On December 31, 2013, Snoddy asked the district court for a new attorney. In
support of his request, he provided the district court with several letters between him and
his attorney discussing strategy on handling the case. On January 14, 2014, the district
court granted Snoddy's request to dismiss his attorney and subsequently appointed
another attorney to represent Snoddy.

On April 7, 2014, Snoddy's new attorney filed another response to Lansing's
motion to dismiss. A few weeks later, a status hearing was held. In a journal entry entered
following the hearing, the district court ordered—based on agreement of the parties—that
Snoddy should undergo an independent medical examination by a physician at the
University of Kansas Medical Center to determine if he suffered any long term effects
from not receiving all of the antibiotics that had been ordered.

At an evidentiary hearing held on October 22, 2015, Snoddy indicated that he had
received a report from the independent medical exam. However, the report is not in the
record. Lansing admitted into evidence a letter from Dr. Paul Corbier, dated October 20,
2015, regarding his review of Snoddy's medical records. The letter stated that Snoddy had
a physical exam performed by a "Dr. Louis" from the University of Kansas in November
4

2014, but no results of the examination were discussed. Dr. Corbier did opine that
Snoddy's lab and EKG results from August 2014 were essentially normal.

Although Snoddy testified that the district court had also ordered that an MRI be
performed, there is nothing in the record to support his allegation that the district court
entered such an order. Snoddy further testified that he needed to have the independent
medical examination repeated because he did not get the results in a timely manner. In
response, Lansing's attorney argued that the independent medical examination ordered by
the district court did not indicate that Snoddy had any medical condition as a result of not
receiving all the antibiotics he was supposed to have been given in February 2013. The
district judge then took the matter under advisement and stated that he would listen to the
recordings from his past hearings in this case before rendering his decision.

On November 17, 2015, the district court entered a memorandum decision
granting Lansing's motion to dismiss and denying Snoddy's request for writ of habeas
corpus. The district court found that the evidence submitted by Lansing "directly
contradicts the assertion that the Secretary has ignored his complaint." In addition, the
district court determined that Snoddy had failed to sustain his burden of proof in this
case. On December 16, 2015, the district court denied a pro se motion for
reconsideration.

ANALYSIS

On appeal, Snoddy contends that the district court erred in failing to find that
Lansing was deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs in violation of the
Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The standard of review for an
appeal of a decision on a K.S.A. 60-1501 petition is whether the factual findings of the
district court are supported by substantial competent evidence and whether those findings
are sufficient to support its conclusions of law. Darnell v. Simmons, 30 Kan. App. 2d
5

778, 780, 48 P.3d 1278 (2002). Substantial evidence refers to legal and relevant evidence
that a reasonable person could accept as being adequate to support a conclusion. State v.
May, 293 Kan. 858, 862, 269 P.3d 1260 (2012). Our review of conclusions of law is
unlimited. Rice v. State, 20 Kan. App. 2d 710, 711, 893 P.2d 252, rev. denied 257 Kan.
1093 (1995). In a K.S.A. 60-1501 action, the petitioner bears the burden to prove that a
constitutional right was violated. Sammons v. Simmons, 267 Kan. 155, 158, 976 P.2d 505
(1999).

In Kansas, an incarcerated person retains the right to adequate medical care and
treatment, which is a right derived from the prohibition against the infliction of cruel and
unusual punishments in both the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution
and Section 9 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights. Habeas corpus is the appropriate
remedy for a prisoner to use to allege being deprived of adequate medical care and
treatment. Darnell, 30 Kan. App. 2d at 780 (citing Levier v. State, 209 Kan. 442, 497
P.2d 265 [1972]).

We examine violations of the Eighth Amendment by measuring whether there has
been deliberate indifference to the serious medical needs of a prisoner. Deliberate
indifference to the serious medical needs of prisoners occurs if there is unnecessary and
wanton infliction of pain. Moreover, when prison officials prevent an inmate from
receiving recommended treatment or deny an inmate access to medical personnel capable
of evaluating the need for treatment, deliberate indifference to serious medical needs is
shown. Darnell, 30 Kan. App. 2d at 780-81.

Deliberate indifference has both objective and subjective components. The
objective component is met if the deprived medical need is sufficiently serious, which
means it "'"has been diagnosed by a physician as mandating treatment or one that is so
obvious that even a lay person would easily recognize the necessity for a doctor's
attention." [Citations omitted.]'" 30 Kan. App. 2d at 781. The subjective component is
6

met if a prison official knows of an excessive risk to the inmate's health or safety and
disregards that risk. 30 Kan. App. 2d at 781. Deliberate indifference has also been
described as callous inattention, reckless disregard, gross negligence, and more than
ordinary negligence but less than express intent to harm or maliciousness. See 30 Kan.
App. 2d at 781 (citing Medcalf v. State of Kan., 626 F. Supp. 1179, 1190 [D. Kan. 1986],
and Cupples v. State, 18 Kan. App. 2d 864, 861 P.2d 1360 [1993]).

Although it is undisputed that Snoddy did not receive some of the antibiotics that
were ordered in February 2013, Snoddy made no showing at the evidentiary hearing that
there was an excessive risk to his health or safety. Moreover, he made no showing that
Lansing knowingly acted in disregard of an excessive risk if, in fact, one existed. At
most, Snoddy has alleged that he may have regressed for a short period of time as a result
of not receiving a full dose of antibiotics. Not only did the district court hold a hearing in
this case to allow Snoddy to present whatever evidence he had to support his claim of
deliberate indifference to serious medical needs, it also ordered an independent medical
examination. For whatever reason, Snoddy did not introduce the results of the
independent medical examination at the hearing. Lansing, however, did present the
opinion of a physician who stated Snoddy's lab and EKG results were essentially normal.

In summary, we find that the district court's decision is supported by substantial
competent evidence. Further, we agree with the district court that Snoddy has failed to
sustain his burden to prove that Lansing showed a deliberate indifference to a serious
medical need. In fact, Snoddy has not proven an excessive risk to his health, much less
that Lansing knew of such a risk and ignored it. Certainly, there has been no showing of
callous inattention, reckless disregard, or gross negligence in this case. We, therefore,
affirm the district court's decision denying Snoddy's K.S.A. 60-1501 petition.

Affirmed.