Butler v. Johnson et al

Filing 10

ORDER directing Plaintiff to amend his 1 Complaint within twenty-one (21) days of the date of this Order, ( Amended Complaint due by 1/1/2016.). Signed by Magistrate Judge R. Stan Baker on 12/11/2015. (ca)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
WAYCROSS DIVISION

DEMARCO RASHAD BUTLER,
Plaintiff,

CIVIL ACTION NO.: 5:15-cv-18

v.
GLEN JOHNSON; EDWINA JOHNSON;
NATHAN BROOKS; and WILLIAM
STEEDLEY,
Defendants.

ORDER
Plaintiff, who is currently housed a Ware State Prison in Waycross, Georgia, submitted a
Complaint in the above captioned action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 contesting certain
conditions of his confinement. (Doc. 1.) Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that he has been deprived
of mental health treatment while housed at Ware State Prison. As such, Plaintiff contends that
Defendants have been deliberately indifferent to a serious medical need.

The Court has

conducted a frivolity review of Plaintiff’s claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. For the reasons
stated below, the Court provides Plaintiff with an opportunity to amend his claims to state a
cognizable claim for relief.
In order to prove a deliberate indifference claim for failure to provide medical care, a
prisoner must overcome three obstacles. The prisoner must: 1) “satisfy the objective component
by showing that [he] had a serious medical need”; 2) “satisfy the subjective component by
showing that the prison official acted with deliberate indifference to [his] serious medical need”;
and 3) “show that the injury was caused by the defendant’s wrongful conduct.” Goebert v. Lee

Cty., 510 F.3d 1312, 1326 (11th Cir. 2007). A medical need is serious if it “’has been diagnosed
by a physician as mandating treatment or [is] one that is so obvious that even a lay person would
easily recognize the necessity for a doctor’s attention.’” Id. (quoting Hill, 40 F.3d at 1187)
(emphasis supplied). As for the subjective component, the Eleventh Circuit has consistently
required that “a defendant know of and disregard an excessive risk to an inmate’s health and
safety.” Haney v. City of Cumming, 69 F.3d 1098, 1102 (11th Cir. 1995). Under the subjective
prong, an inmate “must prove three things: (1) subjective knowledge of a risk of serious harm;
(2) disregard of that risk; (3) by conduct that is more than [gross] negligence.” Goebert, 510
F.3d at 1327.
The Court notes that “mental health needs are no less serious than physical needs” for
purposes of the Eighth Amendment. Gates v. Cook, 376 F.3d 323, 332 (5th Cir. 2004). Plaintiff
has clearly alleged that he has a serious medical need as he has alleged that he has attempted
suicide on numerous occasions and has been sent to a mental health facility. (Doc. 1, p. 5.)
However, it does not appear that Plaintiff has alleged how Defendants have participated in the
violation of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights. In Section 1983 actions, liability must be based on
something more than a theory of respondeat superior. Bryant v. Jones, 575 F.3d 1281, 1299
(11th Cir. 2009); Braddy v. Fla. Dep’t of Labor & Employment Sec., 133 F.3d 797, 801 (11th
Cir. 1998). A supervisor may be liable only through personal participation in the alleged
constitutional violation or when there is a causal connection between the supervisor’s conduct
and the alleged violations. Id. at 802. “To state a claim against a supervisory defendant, the
plaintiff must allege (1) the supervisor’s personal involvement in the violation of his
constitutional rights, (2) the existence of a custom or policy that resulted in deliberate
indifference to the plaintiff’s constitutional rights, (3) facts supporting an inference that the

2

supervisor directed the unlawful action or knowingly failed to prevent it, or (4) a history of
widespread abuse that put the supervisor on notice of an alleged deprivation that he then failed to
correct.” Barr v. Gee, 437 F. App’x 865, 875 (11th Cir. 2011).
Plaintiff has not alleged in any way how the named Defendants were involved in the
violation of his right to treatment for a serious medical need. Indeed, his statement of claim does
not even mention Defendants. (Doc. 1, p. 5.) Thus, the Court could dismiss his Complaint for
failure to state a claim. However, in abundance of caution and particularly given the serious
danger to Plaintiff’s health and safety alleged in the Complaint, the Court will allow Plaintiff a
chance to amend his Complaint to more particularly state his claims against Defendants.
Wherefore, Plaintiff is hereby ORDERED to amend his Complaint within twenty-one (21) days
of the date of this Order. Plaintiff is cautioned that should he fail to timely amend his Complaint,
the Court may dismiss this action for failure to prosecute and failure to follow this Court’s
Orders.
SO ORDERED, this 11th day of December, 2015.

R. STAN BAKER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

3