Opinion
Case No. A1-04-38, Docket Number: 23
May 25, 2004
ORDER
On May 14, 2004, the plaintiff, Anthony James Moore, filed a Motion to Amend Complaint. On May 18, 2004, Moore filed an second amended complaint. The Court need not address the merits of Moore's motion as it was filed shortly after the Court granted Moore leave to file a second amended complaint. Instead, the Court will review Moore's second amended complaint as mandated by 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a).
I. BACKGROUND
The plaintiff, Anthony James Moore, is an inmate at the North Dakota State Penitentiary. On April 7, 2004, Moore submitted a complaint pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that penitentiary officials had opened his "legal mail" outside of his presence and that penitentiary officials had denied him treatment for a finger injury. In addition, Moore submitted a request to proceed in forma pauperis. On April 13, 2004, Magistrate Judge Dwight C.H. Kautzmann issued an order (1) granting Moore's request to proceed in forma pauperis, (2) directing the Clerk's Office to file Moore's complaint, and (3) directing Moore to pay a partial initial filing fee within sixty days or face dismissal of his complaint without prejudice. Moore subsequently filed a Motion for Reconsideration which the Court construed as an appeal of the Magistrate's Order. In addition, Moore filed an amended complaint asserting claims against the following defendants in their individual and official capacities: Kathleen Bachmeier, Denise Senger, Mirna Stromme, Cordell Stromme, Robert Coad, Timothy Schuetzle, Elaine Little, Dr. Jeff Hostetler, Barbara Gross, Justin Heidt, Dan Gleich, John Hagan, and Dr. Tugrul Kihtir. Moore alleged in his amended complaint that penitentiary employees acted with deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs by denying him adequate medical treatment for ongoing pain complaints, a swollen left testicle, and digestive tract problems.
On April 29, 2004, the Court entered an order affirming the Magistrate Judge's decision as it pertained to the assessment of an initial partial filing fee, but vacating the Magistrate Judge's decision as it pertained to dismissal for failure to pay an initial partial filing fee. The Court proceeded to conduct a preliminary review of Moore's amended complaint as required under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). At the outset of the analysis, the Court noted Moore had not included his claims regarding the handling of inmate mail and the finger injury in his amended complaint. Consequently, the Court considered these claims to be abandoned.
Moore subsequently requested leave of Court to file an amended complaint incorporating those claims that the Court had considered to be abandoned. On May 12, 2004, the Court granted Moore leave of Court to file a second amended complaint.
On May 18, 2004, Moore filed a second amended complaint asserting claims against the following defendants in their individual and official capacities: Timothy Schuetzle, Robert Coad, Elaine Little, Kathleen Bachmeier, Denise Senger, Cordell Stromme, Mirna Stromme, Dr. John J. Hagan, and Dr. Jeff Hosetter. Moore's second amended complaint alleged the following:
(1) North Dakota State Penitentiary officials have opened my legal mail outside of my presence. . . .
(2) North Dakota State Penitentiary officials have acted with a deliberate indifference to my serious medical needs in violation of the eighth amendment by the failure and refusal to follow and honor Doctor Ricky C. Becker orders they have totally ignored all of my complaints of ongoing extreme pain in my finger. . . .
(3) North Dakota State Penitentiary officials and employees have acted with a deliberate indifference to my serious medical needs by denying me adequate medical treatment for ongoing pain a swollen left testicle and digestive tract problems . . .II. INITIAL REVIEW OF MOORE'S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, an inmate must allege: (1) a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). In addition, the inmate's complaint must withstand a preliminary screening conducted by the court. A federal court must engage in a preliminary screening of any case in which a inmate seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify any cognizable claims, and dismiss any claims which are frivolous, 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. § 1915A(b)(1) and (2). It is well-established that pro se pleadings should be liberally construed. See Kaylor v. Fields, 661 F.2d 1177, 1182-83 (8th Cir. 1981).
A) INSPECTION OF MOORE'S LEGAL MAIL
Moore alleges in his complaint that penitentiary officials opened his "legal mail" outside of his presence on four separate occasions. The Eighth Circuit has recognized that opening an imate's legal mail outside of his presence may give rise to a constitutional claim. See Powells v. Minnehaha County Sheriff Dept., 198 F.3d 711, 712 (8th Cir. 1999) (per curium) (citing Jensen v. Klecker, 648 F.2d 1179, 1182 (8th Cir. 1981), and Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 576-77 (1974)). Thus, construing Moore's second amended complaint liberally, the Court finds Moore has satisfied the pleading requirements under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and has stated a cognizable constitutional claim with respect to alleged the opening of legal mail by penitentiary officials outside of his presence.
B) DELIBERATE INDIFFERENCE TO MOORE'S MEDICAL NEEDS
The Eighth Amendment's proscription of cruel and unusual punishment, as applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, obligates prison officials to provide inmates with adequate medical care. Dulany v. Carnahan, 132 F.3d 1234, 1237 (8th Cir. 1997) (citing Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 103 (1976)). Construing Moore's amended complaint liberally and giving Moore the benefit of all doubt, the Court finds that, for purposes of the initial review, Moore has arguably satisfied the pleading requirements under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in that he has asserted colorable civil rights claims — deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment — against personnel acting under color of state law in their employment with the North Dakota State Penitentiary.
III. CONCLUSION
Barbara Gross, Justin Heidt, Dan Gleich, and Dr. Tugrul Kitand were named as defendants in Moore's first amended complaint. However, Moore's second amended complaint makes no mention of or reference to these individuals. As a result, Moore's claims against Barbara Gross, Justin Heidt, Dan Gleich, and Dr. Tugrul Kitand are DISMISSED without prejudice.
Viewing the second amended complaint in a light most favorable to Moore, the Court finds that Moore has alleged cognizable claims (deliberate indifference to his medical needs and the opening of legal mail outside of his presence) under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Therefore, Moore may therefore proceed on these claims against those defendants named in his second amended complaint. Without passing on the merits of Moore's amended complaint, the Court directs the Clerk of Court to serve those defendants named in the amended complaint with a copy of the Moore's second amended complaint.