Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:00-CV-2436-G.
February 8, 2001.
MEMORANDUM ORDER
After making an independent review of the pleadings, files, and records in this case, and of the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge, the court agrees with the magistrate judge that (1) because the plaintiff, Albert Little, Jr. ("Little" or "the plaintiff"), is a prisoner, his complaint is subject to screening by the court under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A; and (2) the Dallas County Jail, because it does not enjoy a separate and distinct legal existence, is not subject to suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court therefore ADOPTS the magistrate judge's recommendation that Little's complaint, to the extent it purports to allege a cause of action against the Dallas County Jail, be dismissed with prejudice as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) and 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).
The court declines to find, however, that Little's claims against the individual defendants — Inmate Grievance Committee Deputies M. G. Gibson ("Gibson") and J. M. Jameson ("Jameson") — are "frivolous or malicious," 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). See Harris v. Hegmann, 198 F.3d 153, 156 (5th Cir. 1999) ("A complaint is factually frivolous when `the facts alleged are "fantastic or delusional scenarios" or the legal theory upon which a complaint relies is "indisputably meritless."'") (citations omitted). Little alleges that Gibson and Jameson knowingly (1) delayed by two months (from July 10 to September 23, 2000) the removal of one of his painful, severely abscessed, teeth, Complaint ¶ 5; (2) delayed by an additional one and one-half months (from September 23 to October 31, 2000) the surgical removal of the other, broken, tooth, id. (second handwritten attachment); and (3) denied him pain medication and antibiotics which had been prescribed for him following the surgical removal of his broken tooth, id (second handwritten attachment). The court concludes that these allegations, if true, could well constitute one or more acts or omissions "sufficiently harmful to evidence deliberate indifference to serious medical needs." Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976) (stating elements of a claim for denial of medical care under the Eighth Amendment). That is, they could constitute a knowing disregard of "a substantial risk to inmate health or safety," Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 844 (1994), as well as an unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain repugnant to the conscience of mankind. See Norton v. Dimazana, 122 F.3d 286, 291 (5th Cir. 1997). Accordingly, the magistrate judge's recommendation that the plaintiff's claims against Gibson and Jameson for the denial of medical care under the Eighth Amendment is not adopted, and those claims will be allowed to proceed.
Little states that his oral abscess resulted in substantial swelling in his face and jaw area, and that the dentist or oral surgeon who treated him had to drain pus from his jaw in the course of extracting one of his diseased teeth. These allegations provide further support for the court's conclusion that Little may indeed have had a "serious medical need," Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976), and that the defendants' alleged delay in obtaining treatment for him may have created "a substantial risk to [the plaintiff's] health or safety," Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 844 (1994).
It is, therefore, ORDERED that the clerk mail a true copy of this order to the plaintiff.
It is further ORDERED that the clerk shall issue summons, and that the United States Marshal Service shall serve process on both the defendants within the time prescribed by rule 4(m), F.R.Civ.P.