Opinion
Cause No. 3:04-CV-072 AS.
June 9, 2004
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
James King, a prisoner confined at the Westville Correctional Facility ("WCF"), submitted a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that defendants Ed Buss, Dr. Mitcheff and Dr. Kwame denied him adequate medical care while at WCF. The court must review the merits of a prisoner complaint seeking redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity, and dismiss it if the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Courts apply the same standard under § 1915A as when addressing a motion under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) to dismiss a complaint. Weiss v. Colley, 230 F.3d 1027, 1029 (7th Cir. 2000).
A claim may be dismissed only if it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief. Allegations of a pro se complaint are held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. Accordingly, pro se complaints are liberally construed.
In order to state a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Supreme Court requires only two elements: First, the plaintiff must allege that some person has deprived him of a federal right. Second, he must allege that the person who has deprived him of the right acted under color of state law. These elements may be put forth in a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a)(2). In reviewing the complaint on a motion to dismiss, no more is required from plaintiff's allegations of intent than what would satisfy Rule 8's notice pleading minimum and Rule 9(b)'s requirement that motive and intent be pleaded generally.Alvarado v. Litscher, 267 F.3d 648, 651 (7th Cir. 2001) (citations, quotation marks and ellipsis omitted).
Mr. King brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which provides a cause of action to redress the violation of federally secured rights by a person acting under color of state law. Bell v. City of Milwaukee, 746 F.2d 1205 (7th Cir. 1984). To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege violation of rights secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States, and must show that a person acting under color of state law committed the alleged deprivation. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42 (1988). The first inquiry in every § 1983 case is whether the plaintiff has been deprived of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States. Baker v. McCollan, 443 U.S. 137, 140 (1979).
Mr. King alleges he was denied a prescribed cream for a skin condition. He says the doctors denied him the cream he requested because it was too costly. He says that although he wasn't given the cream he requested, he was prescribed two different creams. A violation of the Eighth Amendment's cruel and unusual punishments clause consists of two elements: (1) objectively, whether the injury is sufficiently serious to deprive the prisoner of the minimal civilized measure of life's necessities, and (2) subjectively, whether the prison official's actual state of mind was one of "deliberate indifference" to the deprivation. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994); Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294 (1991).
In medical cases, the Eighth Amendment test is expressed in terms of whether the defendant was deliberately indifferent to the plaintiff's serious medical needs. Gutierrez v. Peters, 111 F.3d 1364, 1369 (7th Cir. 1997). A medical need is "serious" if it is one that a physician has diagnosed as mandating treatment, or one that is so obvious that even a lay person would easily recognize the necessity for a doctor's attention, and if untreated could result in further significant injury or unnecessary pain, and that significantly affects the person's daily activities or features chronic and substantial pain. Gutierrez v. Peters, 111 F.3d at 1373.
Deliberate indifference is comparable to criminal recklessness, and is shown by "something approaching a total unconcern for [the plaintiff's] welfare in the face of serious risks, or a conscious, culpable refusal to prevent harm." Duane v. Lane, 959 F.2d 673, 677 (7th Cir. 1992). The defendant "must be both aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists, and he must draw the inference." Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. at 837. This total disregard for a prisoner's safety is the "functional equivalent of wanting harm to come to the prisoner." McGill v. Duckworth, 944 F.2d 344, 347 (7th Cir. 1991). Negligence does not satisfy the "deliberate indifference" standard, Sellers v. Henman, 41 F.3d 1100, 1102 (7th Cir. 1994), and it is not enough to show that a defendant merely failed to act reasonably. Gibbs v. Franklin, 49 F.3d 1206, 1208 (7th Cir. 1995). Even medical malpractice and incompetence do not state a claim of deliberate indifference. Walker v. Peters, 233 F.3d 494 (7th Cir. 2000).
Mr. King alleges that the defendants were deliberately indifferent when they denied him cream for his skin condition. Mr. King makes the allegation that the defendants were deliberately indifferent, but the specific facts he provides in his complaint and its attachments refute this allegation. If a plaintiff "pleads facts that show his suit is . . . without merit, he has pleaded himself out of court." Tregenza v. Great American Communications Co., 12 F.3d 717, 718 (7th Cir. 1993). "[A] plaintiff can plead himself out of court. If he alleges facts that show he isn't entitled to a judgment, he's out of luck." Early v. Bankers Life and Casualty Co., 959 F.2 75, 79 (7th Cir. 1992) (citations omitted).
The complaint and its attachments show that Mr. King was seen and treated for his skin condition. He was two different creams for the condition. "Under the Eighth Amendment, [a plaintiff] is not entitled to demand specific care. She is not entitled to the best care possible." Forbes v. Edgar, 112 F.3d 262, 267 (7th Cir. 1997). Mr. King was seen and treated, though not in the way he would prefer. Even if the defendants committed malpractice (a possibility the court does not address), this would not state a claim under § 1983. The reasonable inferences of Mr. Kings' complaint and attachments do not support a claim of deliberate indifference; at worst, they might imply negligence, incompetence, or malpractice.
Mr. King states that his treatment options have been restricted by available funding, but just as he may not demand the best care, so too he may not demand the most expensive care. The touchstone of an Eighth Amendment medical claim is deliberate indifference. An allegation of financial limitations and the consequent need to allocate scarce resources does not inherently allege that the defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. While is it clear that Mr. King believes that he has been provided with inadequate medical care by the defendants, he does not allege, and based on these complaints, it would not be reasonable to infer that they did not care whether or not he received basic medical treatment.
For the foregoing reasons, the court DISMISSES, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).