UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA STATESVILLE DIVISION 5:24-cv-00175-MR
DYRALL HARDY, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ORDER ) ) FNU BRADSHAW, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ________________________________ )
THIS MATTER is before the Court on initial review of Plaintiff’s Complaint. [Doc. 1]. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A. Plaintiff paid the filing fee in this matter. I. BACKGROUND Pro se Plaintiff Dyrall Hardy (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner of the State of North Carolina currently incarcerated at Alexander Correctional Institution (“Alexander”) in Taylorsville, North Carolina. Plaintiff filed this action on August 2, 2024, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against FNU Bradshaw, identified as a nurse at Alexander, and Defendant FNU Young, identified as a physician at Alexander. [Docs. 1, 1-2]. Plaintiff sues Defendants in their individual and official capacities. [Doc. 1 at 2]. He alleges as follows. On May 15, 2024, at an outside hospital, Plaintiff had a “Bard port device … inserted in [his] chest for the sole purpose of Drawing Blood &
other reasons.” [Id. at 5]. On May 29, 2024, at Alexander, Defendant Bradshaw, a Registered Nurse, used the wrong needle in the Port Device to draw Plaintiff’s blood and Plaintiff felt pain in his chest. [Id. at 4]. Defendant
Bradshaw then “stuck Plaintiff in the arm to draw blood.” [Id.]. Defendant Young was supposed to oversee Defendant Bradshaw, but instead “play[ed] on the computer.” [Id. at 5]. Both Defendants were aware that Plaintiff’s blood was to be drawn from the Port Device, and Defendant Bradshaw
“blindly went against” an order by a doctor at the outside hospital. [Id. at 4]. Plaintiff claims Defendants violated his rights under the Eighth Amendment. [Id. at 3]. For injuries, Plaintiff alleges that he suffered chest
pain. He seeks monetary relief, including punitive damages. [Id. at 6]. II. STANDARD OF REVIEW Because Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, the Court must review the Complaint to determine whether it is subject to dismissal on the
grounds that it is “frivolous or malicious [or] fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Furthermore, under § 1915A the Court must conduct an initial review and identify and dismiss the
complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune to such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
In its frivolity review, this Court must determine whether the Complaint raises an indisputably meritless legal theory or is founded upon clearly baseless factual contentions, such as fantastic or delusional scenarios.
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327-28 (1989). Furthermore, a pro se complaint must be construed liberally. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). However, the liberal construction requirement will not permit a district court to ignore a clear failure to allege facts in his Complaint which
set forth a claim that is cognizable under federal law. Weller v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 901 F.2d 387 (4th Cir. 1990). III. DISCUSSION
To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that he was deprived of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States, and that the alleged deprivation was committed by a “person” acting under color of state law. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983; Am. Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Sullivan,
526 U.S. 40, 49-50 (1999); Health & Hosp. Corp. of Marion Cnty. v. Talevski, 599 U.S. 166, 143 S.Ct. 1444 (2023). A. Official Capacity Claims “[A] suit against a state official in his or her official capacity is not a suit
against the official but rather is a suit against the official’s office.” Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989). Because a state is not a “person” under § 1983, state officials acting in their official capacities
cannot be sued for damages thereunder. Allen v. Cooper, No. 1:19-cv-794, 2019 WL 6255220, at *2 (M.D.N.C. Nov. 22, 2019). Furthermore, as noted the Eleventh Amendment bars suits for monetary damages against the State of North Carolina and its various agencies. See Ballenger v. Owens, 352
F.3d 842, 844-45 (4th Cir. 2003). Plaintiff’s official capacity claims, therefore, do not survive initial review and will be dismissed. B. Eighth Amendment
Claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based on an alleged lack of or inappropriate medical treatment fall within the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976). To be found liable under the Eighth Amendment, a
prison official must know of and consciously or intentionally disregard “an excessive risk to inmate health or safety.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994); Johnson v. Quinones, 145 F.3d 164, 167 (4th Cir. 1998). An
official acts with deliberate indifference if he had actual knowledge of the prisoner's serious medical needs and the related risks but nevertheless disregards them. DePaola v. Clarke, 884 F.3d 481, 486 (4th Cir. 2018). The
prison official “must both be aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists, and he must also draw the inference.” Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837.
“[E]ven if a prison doctor is mistaken or negligent in his diagnosis or treatment, no constitutional issue is raised absent evidence of abuse, intentional mistreatment, or denial of medical attention.” Stokes v. Hurdle, 393 F. Supp. 757, 762 (D. Md. 1975), aff’d, 535 F.2d 1250 (4th Cir. 1976).
A “serious medical need” is “one that 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.” Iko v.
Shreve, 535 F.3d 225, 241 (4th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks omitted). Taking Plaintiff’s allegations as true and giving him the benefit of every reasonable inference, Plaintiff has failed to state a claim against any Defendant under the Eighth Amendment based on any alleged indifference
to Plaintiff’s medical needs. At best, Plaintiff’s allegations suggest that one or more Defendants may have been negligent in their medical care of the Plaintiff.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA STATESVILLE DIVISION 5:24-cv-00175-MR
DYRALL HARDY, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ORDER ) ) FNU BRADSHAW, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ________________________________ )
THIS MATTER is before the Court on initial review of Plaintiff’s Complaint. [Doc. 1]. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A. Plaintiff paid the filing fee in this matter. I. BACKGROUND Pro se Plaintiff Dyrall Hardy (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner of the State of North Carolina currently incarcerated at Alexander Correctional Institution (“Alexander”) in Taylorsville, North Carolina. Plaintiff filed this action on August 2, 2024, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against FNU Bradshaw, identified as a nurse at Alexander, and Defendant FNU Young, identified as a physician at Alexander. [Docs. 1, 1-2]. Plaintiff sues Defendants in their individual and official capacities. [Doc. 1 at 2]. He alleges as follows. On May 15, 2024, at an outside hospital, Plaintiff had a “Bard port device … inserted in [his] chest for the sole purpose of Drawing Blood &
other reasons.” [Id. at 5]. On May 29, 2024, at Alexander, Defendant Bradshaw, a Registered Nurse, used the wrong needle in the Port Device to draw Plaintiff’s blood and Plaintiff felt pain in his chest. [Id. at 4]. Defendant
Bradshaw then “stuck Plaintiff in the arm to draw blood.” [Id.]. Defendant Young was supposed to oversee Defendant Bradshaw, but instead “play[ed] on the computer.” [Id. at 5]. Both Defendants were aware that Plaintiff’s blood was to be drawn from the Port Device, and Defendant Bradshaw
“blindly went against” an order by a doctor at the outside hospital. [Id. at 4]. Plaintiff claims Defendants violated his rights under the Eighth Amendment. [Id. at 3]. For injuries, Plaintiff alleges that he suffered chest
pain. He seeks monetary relief, including punitive damages. [Id. at 6]. II. STANDARD OF REVIEW Because Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, the Court must review the Complaint to determine whether it is subject to dismissal on the
grounds that it is “frivolous or malicious [or] fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Furthermore, under § 1915A the Court must conduct an initial review and identify and dismiss the
complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune to such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
In its frivolity review, this Court must determine whether the Complaint raises an indisputably meritless legal theory or is founded upon clearly baseless factual contentions, such as fantastic or delusional scenarios.
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327-28 (1989). Furthermore, a pro se complaint must be construed liberally. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). However, the liberal construction requirement will not permit a district court to ignore a clear failure to allege facts in his Complaint which
set forth a claim that is cognizable under federal law. Weller v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 901 F.2d 387 (4th Cir. 1990). III. DISCUSSION
To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that he was deprived of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States, and that the alleged deprivation was committed by a “person” acting under color of state law. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983; Am. Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Sullivan,
526 U.S. 40, 49-50 (1999); Health & Hosp. Corp. of Marion Cnty. v. Talevski, 599 U.S. 166, 143 S.Ct. 1444 (2023). A. Official Capacity Claims “[A] suit against a state official in his or her official capacity is not a suit
against the official but rather is a suit against the official’s office.” Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989). Because a state is not a “person” under § 1983, state officials acting in their official capacities
cannot be sued for damages thereunder. Allen v. Cooper, No. 1:19-cv-794, 2019 WL 6255220, at *2 (M.D.N.C. Nov. 22, 2019). Furthermore, as noted the Eleventh Amendment bars suits for monetary damages against the State of North Carolina and its various agencies. See Ballenger v. Owens, 352
F.3d 842, 844-45 (4th Cir. 2003). Plaintiff’s official capacity claims, therefore, do not survive initial review and will be dismissed. B. Eighth Amendment
Claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based on an alleged lack of or inappropriate medical treatment fall within the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976). To be found liable under the Eighth Amendment, a
prison official must know of and consciously or intentionally disregard “an excessive risk to inmate health or safety.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994); Johnson v. Quinones, 145 F.3d 164, 167 (4th Cir. 1998). An
official acts with deliberate indifference if he had actual knowledge of the prisoner's serious medical needs and the related risks but nevertheless disregards them. DePaola v. Clarke, 884 F.3d 481, 486 (4th Cir. 2018). The
prison official “must both be aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists, and he must also draw the inference.” Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837.
“[E]ven if a prison doctor is mistaken or negligent in his diagnosis or treatment, no constitutional issue is raised absent evidence of abuse, intentional mistreatment, or denial of medical attention.” Stokes v. Hurdle, 393 F. Supp. 757, 762 (D. Md. 1975), aff’d, 535 F.2d 1250 (4th Cir. 1976).
A “serious medical need” is “one that 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.” Iko v.
Shreve, 535 F.3d 225, 241 (4th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks omitted). Taking Plaintiff’s allegations as true and giving him the benefit of every reasonable inference, Plaintiff has failed to state a claim against any Defendant under the Eighth Amendment based on any alleged indifference
to Plaintiff’s medical needs. At best, Plaintiff’s allegations suggest that one or more Defendants may have been negligent in their medical care of the Plaintiff. Plaintiff, therefore, has failed to state a claim for relief under the
Eighth Amendment. Because Plaintiff has failed to state a claim for relief, Plaintiff’s Complaint fails initial review, and the Court will dismiss it without prejudice.
The Court, however, will allow Plaintiff to amend his Complaint to state a claim for relief. V. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court concludes that Plaintiff’s Complaint fails initial review and will be dismissed without prejudice. The Court will allow Plaintiff thirty (30) days to amend his Complaint, if he so chooses, to properly state a claim upon which relief can be granted in
accordance with the terms of this Order. Any amended complaint will be subject to all timeliness and procedural requirements and will supersede the Complaint. Piecemeal amendment will not be permitted. Should Plaintiff fail
to timely amend his Complaint in accordance with this Order, the Court will dismiss this action without prejudice. ORDER IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint fails initial
review under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b)(1) and 1915(e)(2)(B) for Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim for relief and shall be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE in accordance with the terms of this Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall have thirty (30) days in which to amend his Complaint in accordance with the terms of this Order. If Plaintiff fails to so amend his Complaint, the matter will be dismissed without prejudice. The Clerk is respectfully instructed to mail Plaintiff a blank prisoner § 1983 form. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed: October 7, 2024
Martifi Reidinger ee Chief United States District Judge AS