Sills v. Edwards et al
ORDER directing plaintiff to file an amended complaint within thirty days of the entry of this Order and directing the Clerk to send to plaintiff an ifp application, along with a copy of this Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Beth Deere on 4/7/09. (bkp)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT E A S T E R N DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS E A S T E R N DIVISION L E O N A R D A. SILLS A D C #138335 V. W E N D Y KELLEY, et al. ORDER P lain tiff Leonard A. Sills filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action (docket entry #1), a lo n g with a Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis (#2), in the Western District o f Arkansas. The Western District transferred Plaintiff's case to this Court (#3, #4). On D e c em b e r 8, 2008, this Court denied Plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma p a u p e ris (#2) and ordered him to file an amended complaint and a current motion for le a v e to proceed in forma pauperis (#5). Plaintiff did neither and his case was dismissed u n d e r Local Rule 5.5(c)(2), without prejudice. On March 30, 2009, Plaintiff moved to reopen his case (#16), and the District C o u rt granted his motion (#17). Plaintiff still has not filed a current motion for leave to p ro c e ed in forma pauperis or an amended complaint. As it stands, Plaintiff's Complaint (# 1 ) fails to state a claim for relief. P la in tif f filed this action alleging that his Eighth Amendment rights were violated b y deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that h e was denied medication prescribed to him prior to his incarceration. Plaintiff does not a lle g e any injury resulting from the alleged denial of medication. CASE NO. 2:08CV00198 SWW/BD DEFENDANTS
T h e Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits the infliction of c ru e l and unusual punishment. Jenson v. Clark, 94 F.3d 1191 (8th Cir. 1996). Deliberate in d if f ere n c e by prison personnel to an inmate's serious medical needs violates the in m a te 's Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. Estelle v . Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104-05 (1976). An Eighth Amendment claim that prison o f f ic ia ls were deliberately indifferent to the medical needs of inmates involves both an o b je c tiv e and a subjective component. Coleman v. Rahija, 114 F.3d 778, 784 (8th Cir. 1 9 9 7 ). Inmates must demonstrate (1) that they suffered objectively serious medical n e e d s , and (2) that the prison officials actually knew of but deliberately disregarded those n e e d s . Id. A serious medical need is "one that has been diagnosed by a physician as re q u irin g treatment, or one that is so obvious that even a layperson would easily recognize th e necessity for a doctor's attention." Id. at 778. "The prisoner must show more than negligence, more even than gross negligence, a n d mere disagreement with treatment decisions does not rise to the level of a c o n stitu tio n a l violation." Estate of Rosenberg v. Crandell, 56 F.3d 35, 37 (8th Cir.1995). "[T]he failure to treat a medical condition does not constitute punishment within the m e a n in g of the Eighth Amendment unless prison officials knew that the condition created a n excessive risk to the inmate's health and then failed to act on that knowledge." Long v . Nix, 86 F.3d 761, 765 (8th Cir. 1996). As long as this threshold is not crossed, inmates
h a v e no constitutional right to receive a particular or requested course of treatment, and p ris o n doctors remain free to exercise their independent medical judgment. Id. Plaintiff's Complaint alleges what amounts to a disagreement with treatment d e c is io n s and a claim based on Defendants' failure to prescribe and provide a particular m e d ic a tio n . Although Plaintiff states that his life is in danger, he does not allege injury or d e sc rib e an excessive risk to his health. If Plaintiff wishes to proceed with this action, he m u s t file an amended complaint describing the injury he sustained or describe the p a rtic u la r risk to his health. He must file the amended complaint within thirty (30) days o f the entry of this Order. In addition, Plaintiff must file a current motion for leave to proceed in forma p a u p e ris within thirty (30) days of the entry of this Order. The Clerk is directed to p ro v id e an in forma pauperis application to the Plaintiff, along with a copy of this order. P lain tiff is cautioned that failure to fully comply with this Order may result in d is m is s a l of this action. IT IS SO ORDERED this 7th day of April, 2009.
____________________________________ U N IT E D STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?