Marcus Thomas v. M. Younce
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 7:14-cv-00510-JPJ-RSB Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999602560]. Mailed to: Marcus Thomas. [14-7856]
Appeal: 14-7856
Doc: 14
Filed: 06/16/2015
Pg: 1 of 6
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-7856
MARCUS DALE THOMAS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
M. YOUNCE, Unit Manager; A. MULLIN, LT; Building (LT) A; D.
BARTON, SGT, Building (SGT) A,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke.
James P. Jones, District
Judge. (7:14-cv-00510-JPJ-RSB)
Submitted:
May 29, 2015
Decided:
June 16, 2015
Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded by unpublished
per curiam opinion.
Marcus D. Thomas, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 14-7856
Doc: 14
Filed: 06/16/2015
Pg: 2 of 6
PER CURIAM:
Marcus Dale Thomas, a Virginia inmate, filed a 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 (2012) complaint alleging that Defendant prison officials
were deliberately indifferent to a substantial risk of serious
harm when they ignored a doctor’s order directing that he be
assigned to a bottom bunk on the bottom tier for one year.
As a
result of this deliberate indifference, Thomas alleged that he
fell
down
the
compensatory
stairs
and
damages
injured
and,
preliminary injunction.
later,
his
knee.
filed
Thomas
a
sought
motion
for
a
The district court denied the motion
for a preliminary injunction and dismissed the complaint sua
sponte
for
failure
§ 1915A(b)(1)
established
to
state
(2012).
that
The
a
claim,
court
Defendants’
pursuant
found
deliberate
that
to
28
U.S.C.
Thomas
had
not
indifference
was
the
cause of his injury or that the injury was sufficiently serious
to support a claim.
Thomas appeals the district court’s order
denying his motion for a preliminary injunction and dismissing
his
complaint
reconsideration.
and
the
order
denying
his
motion
for
We affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand
for further proceedings.
We review de novo a district court’s dismissal for failure
to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, accepting all wellpled factual allegations in the complaint as true and drawing
all
reasonable
inferences
in
2
favor
of
the
nonmoving
Appeal: 14-7856
Doc: 14
party.
Filed: 06/16/2015
Pg: 3 of 6
Slade v. Hampton Roads Reg’l Jail, 407 F.3d 243, 248
(4th Cir. 2005).
While a pro se plaintiff’s pleadings are to be
liberally construed, id. at 252, a pro se complaint must still
contain sufficient facts “to raise a right to relief above the
speculative
level”
and
“state
plausible on its face.”
a
claim
to
relief
that
is
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
544, 555, 570 (2007).
The
Eighth
Amendment’s
prohibition
against
cruel
and
unusual punishment “protects inmates from inhumane treatment and
Williams v. Benjamin, 77 F.3d
conditions while imprisoned.”
756, 761 (4th Cir. 1996).
obligated
safety.”
to
take
Makdessi
“Prison officials are, therefore,
reasonable
v.
measures
Fields,
___
to
F.3d
1062747, at *5 (4th Cir. Mar. 12, 2015).
guarantee
___,
___,
inmate
2015
WL
“For a claim based on
a failure to prevent harm, the [prisoner] must [first] show that
he was incarcerated under conditions posing a substantial risk
of
serious
harm.”
Id.
(internal
quotation
marks
omitted).
Next, the prisoner must establish that the prison official had
“a sufficiently culpable state of mind,” that is, “deliberate
indifference
to
[the]
inmate[’s]
health
or
Id.
safety.”
(internal quotation marks omitted).
A
prison
official
“is
deliberately
indifferent
to
a
substantial risk of harm to a [prisoner] when that [official]
knows of and disregards the risk.”
3
Parrish ex rel. Lee v.
Appeal: 14-7856
Doc: 14
Filed: 06/16/2015
Pg: 4 of 6
Cleveland, 372 F.3d 294, 302 (4th Cir. 2004) (internal quotation
marks omitted).
However, “prison officials may not simply bury
their heads in the sand and thereby skirt liability” by claiming
that they were not aware of the risk.
___,
2015
establish
WL
that
1062747,
the
caused his injury.
at
prison
*6.
Makdessi, ___ F.3d at
Finally,
official’s
the
prisoner
deliberate
must
indifference
See Caldwell v. Warden, FCI Talladega, 748
F.3d 1090, 1099 (11th Cir. 2014) (stating elements of deliberate
indifference to substantial risk of serious harm claim).
Thomas alleged that, after he showed Younce the doctor’s
order for the special bunk assignment on at least two occasions,
Younce refused to move him to a bottom bunk on the bottom tier.
Instead, Younce told Thomas that he did not have time to change
Thomas’ bunk assignment and gave him the choice of staying in
the top tier cell or being moved to segregation.
reasonably
inferred
from
Thomas’
complaint
It could be
that
Younce
deliberately denied Thomas’ request to be moved to a bottom bunk
on the bottom tier, in contravention of the doctor’s order.
To
silence Thomas’ complaints, Younce threatened to place him in
segregation if he did not agree to stay in the top tier cell.
Accepting these allegations as true, as we must, we conclude
that Thomas alleged sufficient facts to demonstrate that Younce
4
Appeal: 14-7856
Doc: 14
Filed: 06/16/2015
Pg: 5 of 6
was deliberately indifferent to a substantial risk of serious
harm to Thomas. *
We also conclude that the district court erred by finding
that Thomas placed himself at risk by not accepting Younce’s
offer to be moved to segregation.
Thomas did not voluntarily
place himself at risk; rather, he refused Younce’s objectionable
offer to place him in segregation (presumably without committing
an infraction) in lieu of his staying on the top tier, where he
faced a substantial risk of serious injury.
The court also
erred by concluding that Thomas stated no facts to support the
allegation that his medications played any role in causing his
fall, as Thomas specifically alleged that he was still sedated
from his medication when he caught his shower shoe on the stair
and fell.
Finally, the court erred by finding that Thomas could
not state a claim because he failed to show that the injury to
his
knee
was
significant
challenged
physical
v.
omitted),
incarcerated
or
conditions”
case, Shakka
marks
serious.
Smith,
a
under
While
“evidence
emotional
injury
may
71
aid
F.3d
prisoner
conditions
a
need
posing
*
166
a
a
serious
resulting
prisoner
162,
only
of
in
from
the
making
his
(internal
“show
or
that
substantial
quotation
he
risk
was
of
Of course, Younce is free to dispute these allegations and
raise legal challenges to Thomas’ complaint in a motion to
dismiss or for summary judgment.
5
Appeal: 14-7856
Doc: 14
serious harm.”
Filed: 06/16/2015
Pg: 6 of 6
Makdessi, ___ F.3d at ___, 2015 WL 1062747, at
*5; cf. Wilkins v. Gaddy, 559 U.S. 34, 38-39 (2010) (holding
that there is no de minimis injury threshold for excessive force
claim
because
focus
is
on
prevention
malicious and sadistic use of force).
of
prison
officials’
Although Thomas may have
suffered a relatively minor injury to his knee, the risk of more
significant harm from a fall down the stairs (or out of an upper
bunk) is obvious.
Accordingly, we vacate the portion of the district court’s
orders dismissing Thomas’ claim that Younce exhibited deliberate
indifference to a substantial risk of serious harm when Younce
ignored a doctor’s order directing that Thomas be assigned to a
bottom bunk on the bottom tier for one year.
However, we find
no error in the district court’s dismissal of the claims against
the
remaining
Defendants
and
the
court’s
motion for a preliminary injunction.
denial
of
Thomas’
Accordingly, we affirm
those portions of the district court’s orders.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions
are
adequately
presented
in
the
materials
before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED IN PART,
VACATED IN PART,
AND REMANDED
6
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?