United States District Court, E.D. Oklahoma
OPINION AND ORDER
A. White United States District Judge.
an inmate in the custody of the Oklahoma Department of
Corrections (DOC) who is incarcerated at Joseph Harp
Correctional Center in Lexington, Oklahoma, brought this
action under the authority of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, seeking
relief for alleged constitutional violations during his
incarceration at Oklahoma State Penitentiary (OSP) in
McAlester, Oklahoma. The remaining defendants are David
Marlar, OSP Resident Physician, and three OSP Nurses: Nancy
Coppel, Amber Robinson, and Alicia Scull.
appealed the Opinion and Order dismissing this action to the
Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. The appellate court affirmed
in part, and reversed and remanded for further proceedings
(1) the claim against Ms. Coppel alleging she denied Mr. Gray
(2) the claim against Dr. Marlar concerning Mr. Gray's
neck injury, and
(3) the equal protection claim against Ms. Coppel, Ms.
Robinson, and Ms. Scull.
Gray v. Sorrels, No. 17-7063, slip op. at 18 (10th
Cir. Aug. 1, 2018) (Dkt. 86).
have filed a special report at the direction of the Court, in
accordance with Martinez v. Aaron, 570 F.2d 317
(10th Cir. 1978) (Dkt. 101) and a motion for summary judgment
(Dkt. 102). Plaintiff has filed a response to the motion
(Dkt. 104), and Defendants also have filed a reply (Dkt.
of Medical Treatment (Defendant Coppel)
Tenth Circuit described Plaintiff's remaining claims as
Ms. Coppel was a licensed practical nurse at the prison. The
amended complaint alleged that Mr. Gray's knees were
swollen and severely painful when Ms. Coppel examined him,
and that she would not provide him with anything for the
swelling or pain. Mr. Gray's affidavit further alleged
that Ms. Coppel saw him in late June, 2015, but Dr. Marlar
did not see him until September 2, 2015. In the interim, Ms.
Coppel did not give him any pain medication and instead told
him that he would have to wait for Dr. Marlar. Mr. Gray
alleged that he had been in severe pain while awaiting
We conclude that Mr. Gray stated a plausible claim of the
subjective component of deliberate indifference by alleging
that Ms. Coppel knew of his swollen and painful knees and
determined that they required treatment, yet failed to
provide any pain relief for over two months. This
sufficiently alleged that Ms. Coppel was both aware of facts
from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial
risk of serious harm existed, and that she must also have
drawn the inference.
We further conclude that Mr. Gray's claim that his knees
were severely swollen and caused him severe pain for over two
months stated a plausible claim that the delay resulted in
substantial harm, thus satisfying the objective component.
See Al-Turki, 762 F.3d at 1193 (stating the
objective element is established if the pain ...