Opinion
2:23-cv-01665
11-12-2024
JERROD WILSON D.O.C. # 1492339 v. MONIQUE COVEL, ET AL
JAMES D. CAIN, JR. JUDGE
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
THOMAS P. LEBLANC UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Before the court is a civil rights complaint [doc. 1] filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by plaintiff Jerrod Wilson (“Wilson”), who is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this matter. At the time of filing the suit, he was in the custody of the Louisiana Department of Corrections, incarcerated at the Calcasieu Correctional Center.
This matter has been referred to the undersigned for review, report, and recommendation in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 and the standing orders of this court. For the reasons stated below, IT IS RECOMMENDED that the suit be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
I.
Background
Plaintiff brings the instant civil rights suit against Monique Covel, a nurse at Calcasieu Correctional Center (CCC), Sue Guidry, a nurse at CCC, and the Calcasieu Parish Sheriff, Tony Mancuso, seeking a Court order prohibiting future possible retaliation against him by the defendants as a result of a prior lawsuit filed in this Court. He also asks this Court to order the defendants to transport him to the local hospital to be seen by several specialists.
II.
Law & Analysis
A. Frivolity Review
Wilson has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis in this matter. Accordingly, his complaint is subject to screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), which provides for sua sponte dismissal of the complaint or any portion thereof if the court determines that it 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. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii).
A complaint is frivolous if it lacks an arguable basis in law or fact. Gonzalez v. Wyatt, 157 F.3d 1016, 1019 (5th Cir. 1998). A complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted if it is clear the plaintiff cannot prove any set of facts in support of his claim that would entitle him to relief. Doe v. Dallas Indep. Sch. Dist., 153 F.3d 211, 215 (5th Cir. 1998). When determining whether a complaint is frivolous or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, the court must accept plaintiff's allegations as true. Horton v. Cockrell, 70 F.3d 397, 400 (5th Cir. 1995) (frivolity); Bradley v. Puckett, 157 F.3d 1022, 1025 (5th Cir. 1998) (failure to state a claim).
B. Section 1983
Federal law provides a cause of action against any person who, under the color of state law, acts to deprive another of any right, privilege, or immunity secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States. 42 U.S.C. § 1983. To hold the defendant liable, a plaintiff must allege facts to show (1) that a constitutional right has been violated and (2) that the conduct complained of was committed by a person acting under color of federal law; that is, that the defendant was a government actor. See West v. Atkins, 108 S.Ct. 2250, 2254-55 (1988).
C. Future Retaliation
A claim of retaliation cannot be prospective or speculative. See Burley v. Davis, 6:17-cv-490, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37291, 2018 WL 3301708, at *3 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 5, 2018), report and recommendation adopted, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36108, 2018 WL 1165840 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 6, 2018); Magee v. Crowe, 09-0167, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 119989, 2010 WL 4338641 (E.D. La. Oct. 21, 2010) (denying TRO and preliminary injunction for possible future retaliation); Damm v. Rubin, 07-cv-717, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45552, 2007 WL 1741743 (W.D. La. June 12, 2007) (denying TRO for possible future retaliation); Holloway v. Johnson, 98-cv-048, 2000 WL 33348780 (W.D. Tex. Oct. 23, 2000) (denying TRO and preliminary injunction for possible future retaliation). Accordingly, this claim is not cognizable.
D. Medical Treatment
The federal constitution does not require that inmates receive optimal care. The fact that an inmate's medical treatment "may not have been the best money could buy" is simply insufficient to establish a federal violation. Mayweather v. Foti, 958 F.2d 91 (5th Cir. 1992); see also Gobert v. Caldwell, 463 F.3d 339, 345 n.12 (5th Cir. 2006); McMahon v. Beard, 583 F.2d 172, 174 (5th Cir. 1978). Once incarcerated, an inmate's primary source of medical care becomes the prison medical department, and it is then up to the prison doctor to decide whether outside care is needed. Such decisions are based on the doctor's professional judgment, and, as such, generally are not second-guessed in a federal civil rights action. See Alfred v. Texas Department of Criminal Justice, 80 Fed.Appx. 926, 927-28 (5th Cir. 2003); see also Fowler v. Hodge, 94 Fed.Appx. 710, 713 (10th Cir. 2004) ("Whether and when routine treatment should be augmented with the assistance of a specialist involves an exercise of medical judgment that is generally not subject to redress under the Eighth Amendment."); Walker v. Llovet, Civ. Action No. 08-3834, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93974, 2008 WL 4949038, at *3 (E.D. La. Nov. 18, 2008). Federal courts are loath to second-guess such medical decisions in federal civil rights actions. Westlake v. Lucas, 537 F.2d 857, 860 n.5 (6th Cir. 1976) ("Where a prisoner has received some medical attention and the dispute is over the adequacy of the treatment, federal courts are generally reluctant to second guess medical judgments and to constitutionalize claims which sound in state tort law."); Castro v. Louisiana, Civ. Action No. 08-4248, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 123108, 2008 WL 5169401, at *4 (E.D. La. Dec. 8, 2008) ("[M]edical judgments are not to be lightly second-guessed in a federal civil rights action."). Based on the allegations made in the complaint, plaintiff has received medical care and there is no basis whatsoever for the Court to engage in second-guessing.
III.
Conclusion
For reasons stated above, IT IS RECOMMENDED that the instant suit be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as frivolous and for failure to state a claim.
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that all pending motions be DENIED as MOOT.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the parties have fourteen (14) days from receipt of this Report and Recommendation to file written objections with the Clerk of Court. Failure to file written objections to the proposed factual findings and/or the proposed legal conclusions reflected in this Report and Recommendation within fourteen (14) days of receipt shall bar an aggrieved party from attacking either the factual findings or the legal conclusions accepted by the District Court, except upon grounds of plain error. See Douglass v. United Services Automobile Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1429-30 (5th Cir. 1996).