Skip to content.
About GPO   |   Newsroom/Media   |   Congressional Relations   |   Inspector General   |   Careers   |   Contact   |   askGPO   |   Help  
 

  FDsys > More Information
(Search string is required)
 

16-2343 - PARSONS v. GILBERT


Download Files

Metadata

Document in Context
16-2343 - PARSONS v. GILBERT
February 13, 2018
PDF | More
Entry Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment - Charles Parsons brought this 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 action against Ariene Gilbert, his former parole officer. Mr. Parsons alleges that while he was on parole, his state-mandated GPS ankle monitor began to cause severe pain and injury to his leg. He asserts two related Eighth Amendment claims against Ms. Gilbert, contending that she was (1) deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs by not providing or seeing to his medical treatment, and (2) deliberately indifferent to the pain and injury caused by the GPS ankle monitor by not assisting with the removal or loosening of the monitor. Ms. Gilbert seeks summary judgment on both claims. On the first claim, she argues that she owed no duty to provide medical care to Mr. Parsons because he was not a prisoner in the state's custody. On the second claim, Ms. Gilbert argues she was not deliberately indifferent to the harm and pain caused by the monitor, and that in any event, she is entitled to qualified immunity. Ms. Gilbert's motion for summary judgment on the deliberate indifference to serious medical needs claim is granted. That claim is dismissed. Ms. Gilbert's motion for summary judgment on Mr. Parsons's second claim is denied. Ms. Gilbert's motion for summary judgment, dkt. 21, on Mr. Parsons's deliberate indifference to serious medical needs claim is granted and that claim is dismissed. Summary judgment on the second claim, deliberate indifference to Mr. Parsons's pain and the harm caused by the GPS ankle monitor is denied and that claim will proceed to trial. No partial judgment will enter at this time. Because this action will be resolved either by trial or settlement, the Court on its own motion reconsiders Mr. Parsons's September 21, 2017, motion for assistance with recruiting counsel. That motion, dkt. 28, is granted. The Court will attempt to recruit counsel for Mr. Parsons to assist him in final preparations for trial, for settlement discussions, and for jury or non-jury trial. The Magistrate Judge is requested to schedule this action for a status conference at his earliest opportunity to discuss what remains to be done in preparation for trial and for the possibility of settlement. (SEE ENTRY). Copy to plaintiff via US Mail. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 2/13/2018. (APD)