Martinez v. Chaumont et al
ORDER TO DRAW IN PART AND TO DISMISS IN PART by Judge Lewis T. Babcock on 3/30/16. Defendants Romero, Starks, J. Angello and Andrea Johnson are dismissed. (dkals, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 16-cv-00345-GPG
K. NG CHAUMONT, RN,
RYAN WHITE, RN,
R. DUMIYE, RN,
BRENDA HIGMAN (HIGMIN), LPN,
ANDREA JOHNSON, RN,
SHERIFF STARKS, 510023, and
J. ANGELLO, LPN,
ORDER TO DRAW IN PART AND TO DISMISS IN PART
Plaintiff Jose Martinez is detained at the Denver County Jail in Denver, Colorado.
Plaintiff initiated this action by submitting a Letter to the Court that challenges the
conditions of his confinement. Magistrate Judge Gordon P. Gallagher entered an Order
to Cure Deficiencies on February 15, 2016, and directed Plaintiff to file his claims on a
Court-approved form and either to submit a Prisoner=s Motion and Affidavit for Leave to
Proceed Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 1915 or to pay the $400 filing fee. Plaintiff complied
with the February 15 Order and was granted leave to pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 1915.
The Court must construe the Prisoner Complaint liberally because Plaintiff is not
represented by an attorney. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972); Hall v.
Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). However, the Court should not act as an
advocate for pro se litigants. See Hall, 935 F.2d at 1110. For the reasons discussed
below, the Court will dismiss the Complaint in part and order the case drawn in part.
The claims asserted against Defendants K. NG Chaumont, Ryan White, R.
Dumiye, and Brenda Higman (Higmin), will be drawn to a presiding judge and if
appropriate to a magistrate judge. Defendants Andrea Johnson, Sheriff Romero, Sheriff
Starks, and J. Angello will be dismissed for the following reasons.
The Eighth Amendment is violated when prison officials act with deliberate
indifference to an inmate’s serious medical needs. Sealock v. Colorado, 218 F.3d 1205,
1209 (10th Cir. 2000). “[A] prison official violates the Eighth Amendment only when two
requirements are met. First, the deprivation alleged must be, objectively, sufficiently
serious . . . [Second,] a prison official must have a sufficiently culpable state of mind.”
Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994) (quotations omitted); see also Estelle v.
Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104-06 (1976) (prison officials may not be deliberately indifferent to
the serious medical needs of inmates in their custody). Deliberate indifference means
that “a prison official may be held liable . . . only if he knows that inmates face a
substantial risk of serious harm and disregards that risk by failing to take reasonable
measures to abate it.” Farmer, 511 U.S. at 847.
A prison official who serves as a gatekeeper for medical personnel capable of
treating the condition may be held liable under the deliberate indifference standard if the
prison official delays medical treatment or refuses to fulfill that gatekeeper role. Mata v.
Saiz, 427 F.3d 745, 751 (10th Cir. 2005) (quotations and citation omitted). “A prisoner
may satisfy the subjective component by showing that defendants’ delay in providing
medical treatment caused either unnecessary pain or a worsening of [the prisoner's]
condition.” Id. at 755.
Plaintiff asserts that, when he complained to Defendant Starks about the pain and
swelling in the back of his head, Defendant Starks sent him to medical. ECF No. 5 at 5.
Defendant also asserts that Defendant Starks talked to Captain Sands about what could
be done for Plaintiff and gave Plaintiff an ice pack for the swelling. Id. Plaintiff further
asserts that Defendant Romero had him write a kite and then sent him to medical when
Plaintiff complained to her about the pain and swelling. Id. at 6. The claims Plaintiff
asserts fail to state that either Defendant Starks or Defendant Romero delayed Plaintiff
receiving medical treatment or failed to fulfill the gatekeeper roll. Plaintiff, therefore, fails
to satisfy the subjective component required to assert an Eighth Amendment violation.
Defendants Starks and Romero will be dismissed as parties to this action and the claims
asserted against them will be dismissed as legally frivolous.
Plaintiff also does not name Sheriff Valapando in the caption of the Complaint, but
he does name him in the Parties section of the complaint form. Nonetheless, the only
claims Plaintiff asserts against Sheriff Valapando are that on two occasions he sent
Plaintiff to medical when Plaintiff complained about the swelling and sharp pain in the
back of his head. ECF No. 5 at 4. Because Plaintiff fails to satisfy the subjective
component required to assert an Eighth Amendment violation the claims asserted against
Defendant Valapando will be dismissed as legally frivolous, and Defendant Valapando
will be dismissed as a party to this action.
Furthermore, the only claim that Plaintiff asserts against Defendant Johnson, on
Page Six of the Complaint, is that she gave him “Vicoden 5/32 mg Niroton 300 mg, Valtrex
1 mg.” ECF No. 5 at 6. Again, Plaintiff fails to satisfy the subject component required to
assert an Eighth Amendment violation. The claim asserted against Defendant Johnson
will be dismissed as legally frivolous, and she will be dismissed as a party to this action.
Finally, Plaintiff names J. Angello in the caption and in the Parties section of the
Complaint, but he fails to assert a claim against Defendant Angello. The Court,
therefore, will dismiss Defendant Angello without prejudice. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that Defendants Sheriff Starks, Sheriff Romero, and Andrea Johnson
will be dismissed as parties to the action. The claims asserted against them and Sheriff
Valapando will be dismissed as legally frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(b)(i). It is
FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant J. Angello will be dismissed without
prejudice. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that the claims asserted against Defendants K. NG
Chaumont, Ryan White, R. Dumiye, and Brenda Higman (Higmin) shall be drawn to a
presiding judge and if appropriate to a magistrate judge.
DATED at Denver, Colorado, this 30th
BY THE COURT:
s/Lewis T. Babcock
LEWIS T. BABCOCK, Senior Judge
United States District Court
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?