Cody v. Ste. Genevieve Co Jail

• Court: District Court, E.D. Missouri
• Decided: November 26, 2019
• Docket: 1:19-cv-00210
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION LUKE C. CODY, ) Plaintiff, V. No. 1:19-CV-210 RLW STE. GENEVIEVE COUNTY JAIL, et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter is before the Court on the motion of plaintiff Luke C. Cody, an inmate at the Saine Genevieve County Jail, for leave to commence this civil action without prepayment of the required filing fee. Having reviewed the motion and the financial information submitted in support, the Court has determined to grant the motion, and assess an initial partial filing fee of $1.00. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). Additionally, for the reasons discussed below, the Court will give plaintiff the opportunity to file an amended complaint. Initial Partial Filing Fee Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1), a prisoner bringing a civil action in forma pauperis is required to pay the full amount of the filing fee. If the prisoner has insufficient funds in his prison account to pay the entire fee, the Court must assess and, when funds exist, collect an initial partial filing fee of 20 percent of the greater of (1) the average monthly deposits in the prisoner’s account, or (2) the average monthly balance in the prisoner’s account for the prior six-month period. After payment of the initial partial filing fee, the prisoner is required to make monthly payments of 20 percent of the preceding month’s income credited to the prisoner’s account. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). The agency having custody of the prisoner will forward these monthly payments to

the Clerk of Court each time the amount in the prisoner’s account exceeds $10.00, until the filing fee is fully paid. Jd. Plaintiff has not submitted a prison account statement. As a result, the Court will require plaintiff to pay an initial partial filing fee of $1.00. See Henderson v. Norris, 129 F.3d 481, 484 (8th Cir. 1997) (when a prisoner is unable to provide the Court with a certified copy of his prison account statement, the Court should assess an amount “that is reasonable, based on whatever information the court has about the prisoner’s finances.”). If plaintiff is unable to pay the initial partial filing fee, he must submit a copy of his prison account statement in support of his claim. Legal Standard on Initial Review Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the Court is required to dismiss a complaint filed in forma pauperis if it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. An action is frivolous if it “lacks an arguable basis in either law or fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 328 (1989). An action fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted if it does not plead “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief is a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw upon judicial experience and common sense. /d. at 679. The court must assume the veracity of well-pleaded facts, but need not accept as true “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements.” /d. at 678 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). This Court must liberally construe complaints filed by laypeople. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976). This means that “if the essence of an allegation is discernible,” the court

should “construe the complaint in a way that permits the layperson’s claim to be considered within the proper legal framework.” Solomon v. Petray, 795 F.3d 777, 787 (8th Cir. 2015) (quoting Stone v. Harry, 364 F.3d 912, 914 (8th Cir. 2004)). However, even pro se complaints must allege facts which, if true, state a claim for relief as a matter of law. Martin v. Aubuchon, 623 F.2d 1282, 1286 (8th Cir. 1980). Federal courts are not required to assume facts that are not alleged, Stone, 364 F.3d at 914-15, nor are they required to interpret procedural rules so as to excuse mistakes by those who proceed without counsel. See McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106, 113 (1993). The Complaint Plaintiff, an inmate at Saint Genevieve County Jail, brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He brings this action against defendants Unknown Nurse Melissa; Saint Genevieve County Jail and Dr. Unknown Pewitt. Plaintiff asserts that he arrived at the Saint Genevieve County Jail in October of 2018. He states that in booking he told an unnamed Correctional Officer that he needed to be assigned to a bottom bunk because of back pain, psych meds and because he sometimes passes out. Plaintiff asserts that he was “ignored” and assigned to a top bunk. Plaintiff asserts that on an unidentified date, he fell off the top bunk and woke up in Saint Genevieve County Hospital covered in blood. He states he had a laceration on his head, joint separation in his shoulder, nerve damage and was in need of surgery. Plaintiff claims that when he returned to the Jail he was put in sick call. He states that he explained to Nurse Melissa that he was borderline diabetic, had the start of heart disease, suffered from severe arthritis in his back and hips and was in pain in his shoulder from the nerve damage he suffered. Plaintiff claims that Nurse Melissa prescribed him a nerve prescription, as well as Tylenol, rather than a narcotic to treat his pain. She also told him to call a phone number to ask for copies of his medical records, which

required plaintiff to pay a fee to get copies of the records. This frustrated plaintiff because he was indigent. Plaintiff claims that the mental health counselor at the Jail told Nurse Melissa that she believed he needed medication, but Nurse Melissa believed otherwise. Plaintiff asserts that later - Nurse Melissa came back and told him his medication was under review awaiting his medical records. Plaintiff states that he stays up for days at a time and sometimes thinks the other inmates are plotting against him. He claims he used to have panic attacks for which he took Xanax that his mother gave him, and currently his hands are shaking and his mind is racing. Plaintiff claims that after returning to the Jail after a transfer, he passed out again, although he does not indicate the date on which this occurred. He states that he smashed the side of his face when this occurred, but he “wasn’t treated.” He states that unnamed persons refuse to treat him because he is black, although he does not state support for this conclusory statement. For relief, plaintiff seeks compensatory damages and surgery for his shoulder. Discussion As currently written, the complaint is subject to dismissal. Plaintiff's claim against the Saint Genevieve County Jail is legally frivolous because it cannot be sued. Kefchum v. City of West Memphis, Ark., 974 F.2d 81, 82 (8th Cir. 1992) (departments or subdivisions of local government are “not juridical entities suable as such.”). Additionally, his claims against Nurse Melissa and Dr. Pewitt are also subject to dismissal. Plaintiff did not specify whether he is suing defendants in their official or individual capacities. Where a “complaint is silent about the capacity in which [plaintiff] is suing defendant, [a district court must] interpret the complaint as including only official-capacity claims.” Egerdahl v. Hibbing Community College, 72 F.3d 615, 619 (8th Cir. 1995); Nix v. Norman, 879 F.2d 429,

431 (8th Cir. 1989). Naming a government official in his or her official capacity is the equivalent of naming the government entity that employs the official. Will v. Michigan Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989). To state a claim against a municipality or a government official in his or her official capacity, plaintiff must allege that a policy or custom of the government entity is responsible for the alleged constitutional violation. Monell v. Dep't of Social Services, 436 US. 658, 690-91 (1978). The instant complaint does not contain any allegations that a policy or custom of a government entity was responsible for the alleged violations of plaintiffs constitutional rights. As a result, the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Additionally, the complaint fails to adequately allege facts showing that Dr. Pewitt was personally aware of and disregarded a substantial risk to plaintiff's health or safety. “Liability under § 1983 requires a causal link to, and direct responsibility for, the deprivation of rights.” Madewell v. Roberts, 909 F.2d 1203, 1208 (8th Cir. 1990), see also Martin v. Sargent, 780 F.2d 1334, 1338 (8th Cir. 1985) (claim not cognizable under § 1983 where plaintiff fails to allege defendant was personally involved in or directly responsible for incidents that injured plaintiff). There is no indication in the complaint that plaintiff sought, or was denied treatment, by Dr. Pewitt. Plaintiff cannot hold the Dr. Pewitt liable simply because they held supervisory or administrative positions. See Boyd v. Knox, 47 F.3d 966, 968 (8th Cir. 1995) (claims sounding in respondeat superior are not cognizable under § 1983). And, even assuming plaintiff had brought this action against Nurse Melissa in her individual capacity, to the extent plaintiff is seeking to hold Nurse Melissa liable for deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs, he has failed to allege enough facts to do so. To state a claim for medical mistreatment, plaintiff must plead facts sufficient to indicate a deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. Vaughn v. Greene County, 438 F.3d 845, 850

(8th Cir. 2006) (“Although this court has yet to establish a clear standard [for medical mistreatment] for pretrial detainees, we repeatedly have applied the same ‘deliberate indifference’ standard as is applied to Eighth Amendment claims made by convicted inmates.”); Hartsfield v. Colburn, 371 F.3d 454, 457 (8th Cir. 2004) (applying the Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference analysis to a pretrial detainee’s Fourteenth Amendment claim); see also Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976) (Eighth Amendment); Camberos v. Branstad, 73 F.3d 174, 175 (8th Cir. 1995) (same). Allegations of mere negligence in giving or failing to supply medical treatment will not suffice. Estelle, 429 U.S. at 106. In order to show deliberate indifference, plaintiff must allege that he suffered objectively serious medical needs and that defendants actually knew of but deliberately disregarded those needs. Vaughn, 438 F.3d at 850. As of right now, plaintiff has only alleged a mere disagreement with treatment decisions relative to his physical injuries. He alleges that he wished he had a different course of treatment with regard to the injuries, but this alone does not rise to the level of a constitutional violation. Estate of Rosenberg v. Crandell, 56 F.3d 35, 37 (8th Cir. 1995). Additionally, plaintiff has not indicated that his mental health counselor was qualified to prescribe medication, nor has he indicated that he was told by a physician that he needed mental health drugs but Nurse Melissa failed to prescribe the drugs to him. Plaintiff's Appointment of Counsel The Court will deny plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel. “‘A pro se litigant has no statutory or constitutional right to have counsel appointed in a civil case.” Stevens v. Redwing, 146 F.3d 538, 546 (8th Cir. 1998). A district court may appoint counsel in a civil case if the court is “convinced that an indigent plaintiff has stated a non-frivolous claim...and where the nature of the litigation is such that plaintiff as well as the court will benefit from the assistance of counsel.”

Patterson vy. Kelley, 902 F.3d 845, 850 (8 Cir. 2018). When determining whether to appoint counsel for an indigent litigant, the Court considers relevant factors such as the complexity of the case, the ability of the pro se litigant to investigate the facts, the existence of conflicting testimony, and the ability of the pro se litigant to present his or her claim. Phillips v. Jasper Cty. Jail, 437 F.3d 791, 794 (8" Cir. 2006). After reviewing these factors, the Court finds that the appointment of counsel is not warranted at this time. Plaintiff has demonstrated, at this point, that he can adequately present his claims to the Court. Additionally, neither the factual nor the legal issues in this case appear to be unduly complex. The Court will entertain future motions for appointment of counsel as the case progresses. Instructions for Amending Plaintiff's Complaint The Court will give plaintiff the opportunity to file an amended complaint to set forth his own claims for relief. Plaintiff is advised that the amended complaint will replace the original. E.g., nre Wireless Telephone Federal Cost Recovery Fees Litigation, 396 F.3d 922, 928 (8th Cir. 2005). Plaintiff must submit the amended complaint on a court-provided form, and he must comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, including Rules 8 and 10. Rule 8 requires plaintiff to set forth a short and plain statement of the claim showing entitlement to relief, and it also requires that each averment be simple, concise and direct. Rule 10 requires plaintiff to state his claims in separately numbered paragraphs, each limited as far as practicable to a single set of circumstances. Plaintiff must type, or very neatly print, the amended complaint. In the “Caption” section of the amended complaint, plaintiff must state the first and last name, to the extent he knows it, of the defendant or defendants he wants to sue. Plaintiff should also indicate whether he intends to sue the defendant in his or her individual capacity, official

capacity, or both.' Plaintiff should avoid naming anyone as a defendant unless that person is directly related to his claim. In the “Statement of Claim” section, plaintiff should begin by writing the defendant’s name. In separate, numbered paragraphs under that name, plaintiff should write the specific facts supporting his claim or claims against the defendant. If plaintiff is suing more than one defendant, he should proceed in the same manner with each one, separately writing each individual defendant’s name and, under that name, in mumbered paragraphs, the factual allegations supporting his claim or claims against that defendant. Plaintiff should only include claims that arise out of the same transaction or occurrence, or simply put, claims that are related to each other. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2). Alternatively, plaintiff may choose a single defendant, and set forth as many claims as he has against him or her. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 18(a). Plaintiff's failure to make specific factual allegations against any defendant will result in that defendant’s dismissal. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis [Doc. #2] is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff must pay an initial filing fee of $1.00 within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order. Plaintiff is instructed to make his remittance payable to “Clerk, United States District Court,” and to include upon it: (1) his name; (2) his prison registration number; (3) the case number; and (4) the statement that the remittance is for an original proceeding. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel [Doc. #3] is DENIED at this time.

The failure to sue a defendant in his or her individual capacity may result in the dismissal of that defendant.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk is directed to mail to plaintiff a blank copy of the Court’s prisoner civil rights complaint form. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff must file an amended complaint within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order. Plaintiffs failure to timely comply with this Order may result in the dismissal of this case, without prejudice and without further notice. Dated nny of November, 2019. Servi. RONNIE L. WHITE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE