IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION CIVIL CASE NO. 3:20-cv-00286-MR
JOHN THOMAS JONES, III, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) JANE DOE, et al., ) ORDER ) Defendants. ) _______________________________ )
THIS MATTER is before the Court on initial review of the Complaint [Doc. 1]. Also pending is Plaintiff’s Amended Motion to Appoint Counsel [Doc. 3; as amended, Doc. 10]. Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis. [See Doc. 9]. I. BACKGROUND Pro se incarcerated Plaintiff1 filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 addressing incidents that allegedly occurred at the Lanesboro Correctional Institution. Plaintiff names as Defendants the following Lanesboro C.I. employees: Jane Doe, the head nurse; FNU Mills, a correctional sergeant; FNU Burke, a correctional officer; John Doe, the
1 Plaintiff presently resides at the Maury Correctional Institution. captain in charge of the prison’s nighttime operations; and Gregory D. Haynes, a medical doctor. [Doc. 1 at 1].
The following is a summary of the allegations in Plaintiff’s Complaint. Plaintiff broke his ankle on September 6, 2017. Other inmates helped carry Plaintiff to Defendant Mills’ office where he stated his ankle was broken and
declared a medical emergency. Defendant Mills ordered Plaintiff to go back to his housing block and said that she would call a nurse. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Burke then came to the housing area, gave Plaintiff a sick call form, and said that Plaintiff would have to go through the regular sick call
process, which could take up to two weeks due to a shortage of officers and medical staff. Defendant Burke also stated that Defendant Mills had spoken to Jane Doe head nurse, who refused to see Plaintiff at all. At this point,
Plaintiff’s ankle had swollen to three times its normal size, was black and blue, and was unbearably painful. Plaintiff alleges that several inmates escorted Plaintiff down a hallway to seek emergency treatment. The officer in charge, Defendant John Doe,
had been informed of Plaintiff’s arrival by Defendant Mills. Doe stopped Plaintiff, placed him in handcuffs, and took him to the solitary confinement unit in a wheelchair. [Doc. 1 at 4]. Plaintiff alleges that a nurse2 came to screen Plaintiff pursuant to policy that requires a medical assessment before
an inmate is placed in solitary confinement. Plaintiff told the nurse what had happened, and she saw the condition of his ankle, yet she did not send him to the hospital. Plaintiff was placed in a solitary confinement cell where he
suffered physical and mental pain. Plaintiff alleges that he received an x-ray the next day, which revealed that his ankle was indeed broken. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Haynes did not send Plaintiff to the hospital for emergency medical treatment or
provide a cast. Plaintiff continued to complain of pain for which he was treated with a “very low dose of pain meds” every eight hours. [Doc. 1 at 4]. Plaintiff alleges that he was finally sent to a specialist four weeks later. An
MRI revealed that Plaintiff’s ankle was broken and that his ligaments had been torn from the bone. Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment, as well as compensatory and punitive damages.
2 It is unclear whether the nurse in this section is Defendant Jane Doe. If this nurse is a different individual, the claims against her cannot proceed at this time because she has not been named as a defendant. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a) (defendants must be named in the caption); Londeree v. Crutchfield Corp., 68 F.Supp.2d 718 (W.D. Va. Sept. 29, 1999) (granting motion to dismiss for individuals who were not named as defendants in the complaint but who were served). 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 “(i) frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who
is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); see 28 U.S.C. § 1915A (requiring frivolity review for prisoners’ civil actions seeking redress from governmental entities, officers, or employees). In its frivolity review, a court must determine whether a 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 under color of state law.” Am. Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Sullivan, 526 U.S. 40, 49-50 (1999). The Eighth Amendment prohibits the infliction of “cruel and unusual
punishments” and protects prisoner from the “unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain.” Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 103 (1976) (quoting Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 173 (1976)). To state a claim for deliberate indifference to a serious medical need, a plaintiff must show that he had
serious medical needs and that the defendant acted with deliberate indifference to those needs. Heyer v. United States Bureau of Prisons, 849 F.3d 202, 210 (4th Cir. 2017) (citing Iko v. Shreve, 535 F.3d 225, 241 (4th Cir.
2008)). 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, 535 F.3d at 241 (internal quotation marks omitted). To constitute deliberate
indifference to a serious medical need, “the treatment [a prisoner receives] must be so grossly incompetent, inadequate, or excessive to shock the conscience or to be intolerable to fundamental fairness.” Miltier v. Beorn, 896 F.2d 848, 851 (4th Cir. 1990), overruled on other grounds by Farmer, 511 U.S. at 825.
Plaintiff has plausibly alleged that Defendants were deliberately indifferent to a serious medical need and the Complaint appears to be timely filed. Accordingly, the Complaint will pass initial review. Plaintiff will be
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION CIVIL CASE NO. 3:20-cv-00286-MR
JOHN THOMAS JONES, III, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) JANE DOE, et al., ) ORDER ) Defendants. ) _______________________________ )
THIS MATTER is before the Court on initial review of the Complaint [Doc. 1]. Also pending is Plaintiff’s Amended Motion to Appoint Counsel [Doc. 3; as amended, Doc. 10]. Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis. [See Doc. 9]. I. BACKGROUND Pro se incarcerated Plaintiff1 filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 addressing incidents that allegedly occurred at the Lanesboro Correctional Institution. Plaintiff names as Defendants the following Lanesboro C.I. employees: Jane Doe, the head nurse; FNU Mills, a correctional sergeant; FNU Burke, a correctional officer; John Doe, the
1 Plaintiff presently resides at the Maury Correctional Institution. captain in charge of the prison’s nighttime operations; and Gregory D. Haynes, a medical doctor. [Doc. 1 at 1].
The following is a summary of the allegations in Plaintiff’s Complaint. Plaintiff broke his ankle on September 6, 2017. Other inmates helped carry Plaintiff to Defendant Mills’ office where he stated his ankle was broken and
declared a medical emergency. Defendant Mills ordered Plaintiff to go back to his housing block and said that she would call a nurse. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Burke then came to the housing area, gave Plaintiff a sick call form, and said that Plaintiff would have to go through the regular sick call
process, which could take up to two weeks due to a shortage of officers and medical staff. Defendant Burke also stated that Defendant Mills had spoken to Jane Doe head nurse, who refused to see Plaintiff at all. At this point,
Plaintiff’s ankle had swollen to three times its normal size, was black and blue, and was unbearably painful. Plaintiff alleges that several inmates escorted Plaintiff down a hallway to seek emergency treatment. The officer in charge, Defendant John Doe,
had been informed of Plaintiff’s arrival by Defendant Mills. Doe stopped Plaintiff, placed him in handcuffs, and took him to the solitary confinement unit in a wheelchair. [Doc. 1 at 4]. Plaintiff alleges that a nurse2 came to screen Plaintiff pursuant to policy that requires a medical assessment before
an inmate is placed in solitary confinement. Plaintiff told the nurse what had happened, and she saw the condition of his ankle, yet she did not send him to the hospital. Plaintiff was placed in a solitary confinement cell where he
suffered physical and mental pain. Plaintiff alleges that he received an x-ray the next day, which revealed that his ankle was indeed broken. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Haynes did not send Plaintiff to the hospital for emergency medical treatment or
provide a cast. Plaintiff continued to complain of pain for which he was treated with a “very low dose of pain meds” every eight hours. [Doc. 1 at 4]. Plaintiff alleges that he was finally sent to a specialist four weeks later. An
MRI revealed that Plaintiff’s ankle was broken and that his ligaments had been torn from the bone. Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment, as well as compensatory and punitive damages.
2 It is unclear whether the nurse in this section is Defendant Jane Doe. If this nurse is a different individual, the claims against her cannot proceed at this time because she has not been named as a defendant. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a) (defendants must be named in the caption); Londeree v. Crutchfield Corp., 68 F.Supp.2d 718 (W.D. Va. Sept. 29, 1999) (granting motion to dismiss for individuals who were not named as defendants in the complaint but who were served). 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 “(i) frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who
is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); see 28 U.S.C. § 1915A (requiring frivolity review for prisoners’ civil actions seeking redress from governmental entities, officers, or employees). In its frivolity review, a court must determine whether a 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 under color of state law.” Am. Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Sullivan, 526 U.S. 40, 49-50 (1999). The Eighth Amendment prohibits the infliction of “cruel and unusual
punishments” and protects prisoner from the “unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain.” Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 103 (1976) (quoting Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 173 (1976)). To state a claim for deliberate indifference to a serious medical need, a plaintiff must show that he had
serious medical needs and that the defendant acted with deliberate indifference to those needs. Heyer v. United States Bureau of Prisons, 849 F.3d 202, 210 (4th Cir. 2017) (citing Iko v. Shreve, 535 F.3d 225, 241 (4th Cir.
2008)). 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, 535 F.3d at 241 (internal quotation marks omitted). To constitute deliberate
indifference to a serious medical need, “the treatment [a prisoner receives] must be so grossly incompetent, inadequate, or excessive to shock the conscience or to be intolerable to fundamental fairness.” Miltier v. Beorn, 896 F.2d 848, 851 (4th Cir. 1990), overruled on other grounds by Farmer, 511 U.S. at 825.
Plaintiff has plausibly alleged that Defendants were deliberately indifferent to a serious medical need and the Complaint appears to be timely filed. Accordingly, the Complaint will pass initial review. Plaintiff will be
required to identify Defendants John Doe and Jane Doe, at the latest, by the deadline for adding parties and filing motions to amend, which will be established in a future order. See also Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). Plaintiff’s Amended Motion to Appoint Counsel will be denied as moot
insofar as Plaintiff will be granted the opportunity to seek assistance from North Carolina Prisoner Legal Services pursuant to the Standing Order in Misc. Case No. 3:19-mc-00060-FDW.
IV. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Court concludes that the Complaint has passed initial review on Plaintiff’s claim of deliberate indifference to a serious medical need.
This Court’s Local Rule 4.3 sets forth the procedure to waive service of process for current or former employees of NCDPS in actions filed by North Carolina State prisoners. In light of the Court’s determination that this
case passes initial review, the Court will order the Clerk of Court to commence the procedure for waiver of service as set forth in Local Civil Rule 4.3 for Defendants Burke, Mills, Haynes, John Doe captain in charge, and Jane Doe head nurse, who are alleged to be current or former employees of NCDPS. IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Complaint [Doc. 1] has passed initial review. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion to Appoint Counsel [Doc. 3] and Amended Motion to Appoint Counsel [Doc. 10] are DENIED AS MOOT. The Clerk of Court is hereby directed to commence the procedure for waiver of service as set forth in Local Civil Rule 4.3 for Defendants Burke, Mills, Haynes, John Doe captain in charge, and Jane Doe head nurse, who
are alleged to be current or former employees of NCDPS. The Clerk is further direct to mail Plaintiff an Opt-In/ Opt-Out form pursuant to the Standing Order in Misc. Case No. 3:19-mc-00060-FDW. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed: October 19, 2020 Ct ey Chief United States District Judge AS