Opinion
2:20-cv-02301-CMC-MGB
05-04-2021
Emerson Jimel Edwards, Plaintiff, v. Nurse White; Nurse Collin; and Nurse Jones, Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
MARY GORDON BAKER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Plaintiff Emerson Jimel Edwards (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, brings this civil action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against three nurses at Broad River Correctional Institution (“Broad River”). Under 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1) and Local Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.), the undersigned is authorized to review all pretrial matters in this case and submit findings and recommendations to the United States District Judge. For the reasons discussed below, the undersigned recommends that this action be summarily dismissed, with prejudice and without issuance and service of process.
BACKGROUND
The instant case is premised on bare, cursory allegations of inadequate medical treatment at Broad River. After reviewing Plaintiff's original Complaint (Dkt. No. 1), the undersigned issued an order notifying Plaintiff that his case was subject to summary dismissal for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted (Dkt. No. 7). In light of Plaintiff's pro se status, however, the undersigned gave him an opportunity to cure the identified deficiencies in the original pleading by filing an amended complaint with the Court. Although Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint in compliance with the undersigned's instructions (Dkt. No. 12), the revised allegations simply restate those presented in the initial pleading, such that Plaintiff's claims are still subject to summary dismissal.
Specifically, Plaintiff's Amended Complaint alleges that the nurses at Broad River administered his daily “pills” only sometimes and apparently did not “give” him “sick call.” (Dkt. No. 12 at 4.) With respect to his purported injuries, Plaintiff claims that his feet are “messed up, ” and that the nurses gave him medication that caused his teeth to fall out. (Id. at 5.) Plaintiff seeks $500,000 for every nurse who failed to provide adequate medical treatment at Broad River- presumably, the three named Defendants. (Id.) This is the extent of Plaintiff's allegations.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Under established local procedure in this judicial district, a careful review has been made of the pro se Amended Complaint pursuant to the procedural provisions of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), Pub. L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321 (1996). The action has been filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, which permits an indigent litigant to commence an action in federal court without prepaying the administrative costs of proceeding with the lawsuit, and is also governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which requires the court to review a complaint filed by a prisoner that seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity.
To protect against possible abuses, the court must dismiss any prisoner complaints, or portions of complaints, that are frivolous or malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). A complaint is frivolous if it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 31 (1992). Indeed, a claim based on a meritless legal theory may be dismissed sua sponte “at any time” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324-25 (1989). The United States Supreme Court has explained that the statute “is designed largely to discourage the filing of, and waste of judicial and private resources upon, baseless lawsuits.” Id. at 326.
As to failure to state a claim, a complaint filed in federal court must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). In order to satisfy this standard, a plaintiff must do more than make conclusory statements. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (explaining that the court need not accept as true a complaint's legal conclusions). Rather, the complaint “must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'” See Id. (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). When “it is clear that no relief could be granted under any set of facts that could be proved consistent with the allegations, ” Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984), the complaint fails to state a claim.
Pro se complaints are held to a less stringent standard than those drafted by attorneys. Gordon v. Leeke, 574 F.2d 1147, 1151 (4th Cir. 1978). A federal court is therefore charged with liberally construing a complaint filed by a pro se litigant to allow the development of a potentially meritorious case. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). Nonetheless, the requirement of liberal construction does not mean that the court can ignore a clear failure to allege facts that set forth a cognizable claim under Rule 8(a)(2). See Weller v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 901 F.2d 387, 390- 91 (4th Cir. 1990); see also Ashcroft, 556 U.S. at 684 (2009) (outlining pleading requirements under Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for “all civil actions”). Such is the case here.
DISCUSSION
As noted above, Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based on allegations of inadequate medical treatment at Broad River. Thus, while Plaintiff does not expressly identify which of his constitutional rights were violated, the undersigned assumes Plaintiff intends to raise a claim under the Eighth Amendment, which protects prisoners from “unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain, ” including “deliberate indifference to serious medical needs.” Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 102-05 (1976); see also Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 833 (1994). As explained in the undersigned's proper form order (Dkt. No. 7), a plaintiff must demonstrate the following two factors to establish a claim based on inadequate medical treatment under § 1983: “objectively assessed, [the plaintiff] had a sufficiently serious medical need to require medical treatment, ” and the prison official was “subjectively aware of the need and of its seriousness” but “nevertheless acted with deliberate indifference to it by declining to secure available medical attention.” See McClain v. Fate, No. 0:15-cv-04516-MBS, 2017 WL 3725317, at *2 (D.S.C. Aug. 29, 2017) (citing Brice v. Va. Beach Corr. Ctr., 58 F.3d 101, 104 (4th Cir. 1995)); see also Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834.
While the federal pleading standard does not require “detailed factual allegations, ” it “demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Here, the undersigned explicitly warned Plaintiff that his case would be summarily dismissed if he did not provide some minimal level of factual support regarding his alleged medical needs and Defendants' purported indifference thereto. (See Dkt. No. 7 at 2.) In particular, the undersigned emphasized that Plaintiff must explain how each individual Defendant was personally involved in the alleged harm. (Id.) See Wilcox v. Brown, 877 F.3d 161, 170 (4th Cir. 2017) (noting that a person acting under color of state law can be liable under § 1983 only if he or she was personally involved in the deprivation of the plaintiff's federal rights); see also Hill v. Bodiford, No. 4:20-cv-2254-BHH-TER, 2020 WL 5079073, at *3 (D.S.C. Aug. 7, 2020), adopted, 2020 WL 5077656 (D.S.C. Aug. 27, 2020) (explaining that a § 1983 plaintiff must show that he suffered an injury resulting from a defendant's specific conduct and “an affirmative link” between the injury and that conduct). Despite having availed himself of the opportunity to amend his original pleading, however, Plaintiff's Amended Complaint does not provide sufficient factual allegations to demonstrate these requisite factors.
As a threshold matter, Plaintiff does not identify a “serious medical need” that was allegedly disregarded by the nurses at Broad River. Moreover, the Amended Complaint does not clarify the connection between Plaintiff's seemingly random references to his feet and missing teeth, and the nurses' alleged indifference to his purported medical needs. Such bare allegations are insufficient, even for a pro se party like Plaintiff, to state a claim for relief. See Garner v. Cohen, No. 2:16-cv-561-TLW-MGB, 2016 WL 9175627, at *4 (D.S.C. Sept. 1, 2016), adopted, 2017 WL 2645754 (D.S.C. June 20, 2017) (finding complaint's “vague references to [pro se] Plaintiff's rights being violated, absent any specific facts or allegations against the Defendants, [were] wholly insufficient to state any sort of plausible claim”); Green v. Sumter Court, No. 3:07-cv-1570-JFA-BM, 2007 WL 2022199, at *2-3 (D.S.C. July 9, 2007) (dismissing suit as frivolous where complaint was so “filled with what could only be considered by a reasonable person as unconnected, conclusory, unsupported statements or ‘gibberish' that they do not state a cause of action”); Adams v. Rice, 40 F.3d 72 (4th Cir. 1994) (affirming dismissal of plaintiff's suit as frivolous where allegations were conclusory and nonsensical on their face); see also Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 536-37 (1974) (noting that federal courts lack power to entertain claims that are “so attenuated and unsubstantial as to be absolutely devoid of merit”). Because Plaintiff has had an opportunity to amend his Complaint and still failed to state a claim to relief under § 1983, the Amended Complaint must be summarily dismissed.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed above, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that the Court dismiss this action with prejudice. See Workman v. Morrison Healthcare, 724 F. App'x. 280, 281 (4th Cir. June 4, 2018) (noting that where the district court has already afforded an opportunity to amend, the district court has the discretion to afford another opportunity to amend or can “dismiss the complaint with prejudice, thereby rendering the dismissal order a final, appealable order”).
IT IS SO RECOMMENDED.
Charleston, South Carolina The parties' attention is directed to the important notice on the next page.
Notice of Right to File Objections to Report and Recommendation
The parties are advised that they may file specific written objections to this Report and Recommendation with the District Judge. Objections must specifically identify the portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objections are made and the basis for such objections. “[I]n the absence of a timely filed objection, a district court need not conduct a de novo review, but instead must ‘only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.'” Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 72 advisory committee's note).
Specific written objections must be filed within fourteen (14) days of the date of service of this Report and Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a), (d). Filing by mail pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5 may be accomplished by mailing objections to:
Robin L. Blume, Clerk United States District Court Post Office Box 835 Charleston, South Carolina 29402
Failure to timely file specific written objections to this Report and Recommendation will result in waiver of the right to appeal from a judgment of the District Court based upon such Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841 (4th Cir. 1985); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984).