Opinion
CASE NO. 19-3128-SAC
12-03-2019
TIMOTHY DALE FLETCHER, Plaintiff, v. UNIFIED GOVERNMENT OF WYANDOTTE COUNTY, KANSAS, et al., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
Plaintiff Timothy Dale Fletcher brings this pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff proceeds in forma pauperis. Mr. Fletcher is currently an inmate at the Wilson County Jail in Fredonia, Kansas. For the reasons discussed below, Plaintiff is ordered to show cause why his complaint should not be dismissed.
I. Nature of the Matter before the Court
Plaintiff's complaint (ECF No. 1) alleges that he received constitutionally inadequate medical care when he was arrested and confined at the Wyandotte County Detention Center (WCDC) in Kansas City, Kansas. Plaintiff states he was at his sister's house on February 25, 2019, when two Wyandotte County deputies arrived and arrested him on a warrant. Apparently, Mr. Fletcher had gotten "jumped" and beaten up three days before and believed he had broken ribs and lung damage. He told the deputies that he needed to be taken to the University of Kansas Medical Center for treatment of his injuries. The deputies refused Plaintiff's request after calling someone.
Upon his arrival at WCDC, Plaintiff was seen by the nurse upon his request. According to the complaint, the nurse, Jane LNU, "put this box on [Plaintiff's] finger" (ECF No. 1 at 8) but did not check his ribs. She told him he was just fine, and he was booked. Plaintiff continued to be in pain and to complain to WCDC personnel, but he was able to work as a trustee at the jail. He was seen by a nurse again on July 9, 2019, and x-rays were ordered.
Plaintiff names as defendants the Unified Government of Wyandotte County, the Wyandotte County Sheriff's Department, Deputy FNU Hylton, and Deputy FNU Erickson. He requests relief in the form of financial compensation for his pain and for any hospital bills. He further requests that his case be dropped and he be released from custody and that Deputy Hylton and Erickson be dismissed.
II. Statutory Screening of Prisoner Complaints
The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity or an officer or an employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). Additionally, with any litigant, such as Plaintiff, who is proceeding in forma pauperis, the Court has a duty to screen the complaint to determine its sufficiency. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if a plaintiff has raised claims that are legally frivolous or malicious, that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1)-(2).
"To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege the violation of a right secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States, and must show that the alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under color of state law." West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988) (citations omitted); Northington v. Jackson, 973 F.2d 1518, 1523 (10th Cir. 1992). A court liberally construes a pro se complaint and applies "less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers." Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). In addition, the court accepts all well-pleaded allegations in the complaint as true. Anderson v. Blake, 469 F.3d 910, 913 (10th Cir. 2006). On the other hand, "when the allegations in a complaint, however true, could not raise a claim of entitlement to relief," dismissal is appropriate. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 558 (2007).
A pro se litigant's "conclusory allegations without supporting factual averments are insufficient to state a claim upon which relief can be based." Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). "[A] plaintiff's obligation to provide the 'grounds' of his 'entitlement to relief' requires "more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (citations omitted). The complaint's "factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level" and "to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Id. at 555, 570.
The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals has explained "that, to state a claim in federal court, a complaint must explain what each defendant did to [the pro se plaintiff]; when the defendant did it; how the defendant's action harmed [the plaintiff]; and, what specific legal right the plaintiff believes the defendant violated." Nasious v. Two Unknown B.I.C.E. Agents, 492 F.3d 1158, 1163 (10th Cir. 2007). The court "will not supply additional factual allegations to round out a plaintiff's complaint or construct a legal theory on a plaintiff's behalf." Whitney v. New Mexico, 113 F.3d 1170, 1173-74 (10th Cir. 1997) (citation omitted).
The Tenth Circuit has pointed out that the Supreme Court's decisions in Twombly and Erickson gave rise to a new standard of review for § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) dismissals. See Kay v. Bemis, 500 F.3d 1214, 1218 (10th Cir. 2007) (citations omitted); see also Smith v. United States, 561 F.3d 1090, 1098 (10th Cir. 2009). As a result, courts "look to the specific allegations in the complaint to determine whether they plausibly support a legal claim for relief." Kay, 500 F.3d at 1218 (citation omitted). Under this new standard, "a plaintiff must 'nudge his claims across the line from conceivable to plausible.'" Smith, 561 F.3d at 1098 (citation omitted). "Plausible" in this context does not mean "likely to be true," but rather refers "to the scope of the allegations in a complaint: if they are so general that they encompass a wide swath of conduct, much of it innocent," then the plaintiff has not "nudged [his] claims across the line from conceivable to plausible." Robbins v. Oklahoma, 519 F.3d 1242, 1247 (10th Cir. 2008) (citing Twombly, 127 S. Ct. at 1974).
III. Discussion
A. Failure to state a claim of a constitutional violation
The Court finds that the facts alleged by Plaintiff, taken as true, fail to state a claim of a federal constitutional violation. The United States Supreme Court has held that an inmate advancing an Eighth Amendment claim of cruel and unusual punishment based on inadequate provision of medical care must establish "deliberate indifference to serious medical needs." Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976). The "deliberate indifference" standard has two components: "an objective component requiring that the pain or deprivation be sufficiently serious; and a subjective component requiring that [prison] officials act with a sufficiently culpable state of mind." Miller v. Glanz, 948 F.2d 1562, 1569 (10th Cir. 1991); Martinez v. Garden, 430 F.3d 1302, 1304 (10th Cir. 2005).
To satisfy the objective component, the inmate must show the presence of a "serious medical need," that is "a serious illness or injury." Estelle, 429 U.S. at 104, 105; Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994). A medical need is sufficiently serious if "it 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." Mata v. Saiz, 427 F.3d 745, 751 (10th Cir. 2005).
"The subjective component is met if a prison official knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or safety." Martinez, 430 F.3d at 1304 (citing Sealock v. Colorado, 218 F.3d 1205, 1209 (10th Cir .2000) (quotation omitted)). In measuring a prison official's state of mind, "the 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." Id. at 1305 (citing Riddle v. Mondragon, 83 F.3d 1197, 1204 (10th Cir. 1996) (quotation omitted)).
It is well-settled that deliberate indifference requires more than mere negligence. See Farmer, 511 U.S. at 835. Thus, the complaint that a physician, or other medical staff member, was negligent in diagnosing or treating a medical condition does not state a valid claim of medical mistreatment under the Eighth Amendment. Estelle, 429 U.S. at 106; Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 297 (1991). Likewise, a mere difference of opinion between the inmate and prison medical personnel regarding what constitutes reasonable treatment does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment. See Estelle, 429 U.S. at 106-07; Handy v. Price, 996 F.2d 1064, 1067 (10th Cir. 1993) (affirming that a quarrel between a prison inmate and the doctor as to the appropriate treatment for hepatitis did not successfully raise an Eighth Amendment claim); El'Amin v. Pearce, 750 F.2d 829, 833 (10th Cir. 1984) (A mere difference of opinion over the adequacy of medical treatment received cannot provide the basis for an Eighth Amendment claim.). As the United States Supreme Court has explained:
[A]n inadvertent failure to provide adequate medical care cannot be said to constitute "an unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain" or to be "repugnant to the conscience of mankind...." Medical malpractice does not become a constitutional violation merely because the victim is a prisoner.Estelle, 429 U.S. at 105-106 (footnote omitted).
Moreover, a delay in providing medical care does not violate the Eighth Amendment, unless there has been deliberate indifference resulting in substantial harm. Olson v. Stotts, 9 F.3d 1475 (10th Cir. 1993). In situations where treatment was delayed rather than denied altogether, the Tenth Circuit requires a showing that the inmate suffered "substantial harm" as a result of the delay. Garrett v. Stratman, 254 F.3d 946, 950 (10th Cir. 2001); Kikumura v. Osagie, 461 F.3d 1269, 1292 (10th Cir. 2006).
Plaintiff alleges he had pre-existing broken ribs and lung damage when he was arrested, but he provides nothing more than the bald allegation. He does not state whether he had been diagnosed by a doctor with these injuries and if so, whether he provided the doctor's report to the deputies who arrested him or to WCDC personnel. The injuries he claims to have had were not of the type that would have been "so obvious that even a lay person would easily recognize the necessity for a doctor's attention." See Mata, 427 F.3d at 751. He cites "no swelling, discoloration, bleeding, or [visible] broken bones that would make his injury as one obviously needing immediate medical care." See Barron v. Macy, 268 F. App'x 800, 801 (10 Cir. 2008). While the deputies did not take him to KU Med Center as he wanted, Plaintiff admits he was evaluated by a nurse upon booking and later received additional treatment. The complaint contains no indication that Plaintiff suffered substantial harm as a result of the delayed treatment.
The Court finds that Plaintiff has thus failed to state facts sufficient to support a plausible claim of cruel and unusual punishment. Plaintiff is given time to show cause why this action should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim of a federal constitutional violation.
B. Defendants
Plaintiff names Wyandotte County and the Wyandotte County Sheriff's Department as defendants. To impose § 1983 liability on the county and its officials, Plaintiff must show that a county employee committed a constitutional violation and that a county policy or custom was "the moving force" behind the constitutional violation. Myers v. Oklahoma County Bd. of County Comm'rs, 151 F.3d 1313, 1318 (10th Cir. 1998)(citing see Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 695 (1978)). The Supreme Court explained that in Monell they decided "a municipality can be found liable under § 1983 only where the municipality itself causes the constitutional violation at issue," and "there are limited circumstances in which an allegation of a 'failure to train' can be the basis for liability under § 1983." City of Canton, Ohio v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378, 385-86 (1989). Plaintiff has pointed to no policy or deficiency in the training program used by the Sheriff or Wyandotte County and no causal link between any such inadequacy and the allegedly unconstitutional acts or inactions of jail personnel. Therefore, these defendants are subject to dismissal.
C. Request for Release
One of the types of relief Plaintiff requests is that he be released from confinement. However, such relief cannot be granted in a § 1983 action. A petition for habeas corpus relief is a state prisoner's sole remedy in federal court for a claim of entitlement to immediate or speedier release. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 499 (1973); McIntosh v. United States Parole Commission, 115 F.3d 809, 811 (10th Cir. 1997); see Boutwell v. Keating, 399 F.3d 1203, 1209 (10th Cir. 2005)("Habeas corpus is the only avenue for a challenge to the fact or duration of confinement, at least when the remedy requested would result in the prisoner's immediate or speedier release.").
IV. Response Required
For the reasons stated herein, Plaintiff's complaint is subject to dismissal under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b) and 1915(e)(2)(B) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Plaintiff is therefore required to show good cause why his complaint should not be dismissed. Plaintiff is warned that his failure to file a timely response may result in the complaint being dismissed for the reasons stated herein without further notice.
V. Motion to Appoint Counsel
Also before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion to Appoint Counsel (ECF No. 10). Having considered the motion, the Court finds it should be denied.
There is no constitutional right to appointment of counsel in a civil case. Durre v. Dempsey, 869 F.2d 543, 547 (10th Cir. 1989); Carper v. DeLand, 54 F.3d 613, 616 (10th Cir. 1995). The decision whether to appoint counsel in a civil matter lies in the discretion of the district court. Williams v. Meese, 926 F.2d 994, 996 (10th Cir. 1991). "The burden is on the applicant to convince the court that there is sufficient merit to his claim to warrant the appointment of counsel." Steffey v. Orman, 461 F.3d 1218, 1223 (10th Cir. 2006) (quoting Hill v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 393 F.3d 1111, 1115 (10th Cir. 2004)). It is not enough "that having counsel appointed would have assisted [the prisoner] in presenting his strongest possible case, [as] the same could be said in any case." Steffey, 461 F.3d at 1223 (quoting Rucks v. Boergermann, 57 F.3d 978, 979 (10th Cir. 1995)).
In deciding whether to appoint counsel, courts must evaluate "the merits of a prisoner's claims, the nature and complexity of the factual and legal issues, and the prisoner's ability to investigate the facts and present his claims." Hill, 393 F.3d at 1115 (citing Rucks, 57 F.3d at 979). The Court concludes in this case that (1) it is not clear at this juncture that Plaintiff has asserted a colorable claim against a named defendant; (2) the issues are not overly complex; and (3) Plaintiff appears capable of adequately presenting facts and arguments. The Court denies the motion without prejudice to refiling if the case moves forward.
VI. Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis
Plaintiff has also filed a second motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 11). Since the Court already granted him leave to proceed in forma pauperis (see ECF No. 3), this motion is denied as moot.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff is granted to and including January 3, 2020, in which to show good cause, in writing, why his complaint should not be dismissed for the reasons stated herein.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Appoint Counsel (ECF No. 10) is denied without prejudice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Second Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 11) is denied as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: This 3 day of December, 2019, at Topeka, Kansas.
s/ Sam A. Crow
SAM A. CROW
U.S. Senior District Judge