Robert Dee Burke v. Warden, New Hampshire State Prison, et al.

2014 DNH 126

• Court: District Court, D. New Hampshire
• Decided: June 4, 2014
• Docket: 14-cv-158-SM
• Status: Published

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Robert Dee Burke

v. Case No. 14-cv-158-SM Opinion No. 2014 DNH 126

Warden, New Hampshire State Prison, et al.

O R D E R

Robert Burke has filed a complaint (doc. no. 1) asserting

that the warden of the New Hampshire State Prison (“NHSP”), an

NHSP classifications counselor, and the NHSP health services

administrator have violated his Eighth Amendment rights by

denying him adequate medical care. The complaint is before the

court for preliminary review, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.

Preliminary Review Standard

In determining whether a pro se pleading states a claim, the

court construes the pleading liberally. See Erickson v. Pardus,

551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). Disregarding any legal conclusions, the

court considers whether the factual content in the pleading and

inferences reasonably drawn therefrom, taken as true, state a

plausible claim to relief. Hernandez-Cuevas v. Taylor, 723 F.3d 91, 102-03 (1st Cir. 2013) (citing Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.

662, 678 (2009)).

Background

On January 13, 2012, Burke was transferred from New

Hampshire to a prison in Connecticut for unspecified security

reasons. Burke suffers from severe cystic acne, and prior to his

transfer, NHSP medical personnel had prescribed a particular

antibiotic for that condition. Burke asserts that when he was

transferred to Connecticut, the NHSP health services

administrator misidentified the particular antibiotic that she

knew Burke had been prescribed for his acne, and instead provided

the receiving facility with the name of an antibiotic that was

not effective. As a result, Burke alleges, he did not

immediately receive effective antibiotics post-transfer.1

Discussion

“The failure of correctional officials to provide inmates

with adequate medical care may offend the Eighth Amendment if

1 In his complaint, Burke describes allegedly inadequate medical care at the prison in Connecticut. No Connecticut defendants are named here, and this court may not have jurisdiction over such defendants in any event. Accordingly, the court does not construe the complaint as intending to state any claim concerning events in Connecticut.

2 their ‘acts or omissions [are] sufficiently harmful to evidence

deliberate indifference to serious medical needs.’” Leavitt v.

Corr. Med. Servs., Inc., 645 F.3d 484, 497 (1st Cir. 2011).

Assuming, without deciding, that Burke has stated that he has a

serious medical need, he has failed to allege facts indicating

that any named defendant acted with deliberate indifference to

those needs. The complaint fails to state any plausible claim

for relief.

Conclusion

Within thirty days of the date of this order, Burke may file

an amended complaint asserting plausible claims upon which relief

might be granted. If Burke fails to so amend his complaint, this

action will be dismissed.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________ Steven J. McAuliffe United States District Judge

June 4, 2014

cc: Robert Dee Burke, pro se

SM:jba