Fiore v. Idaho Department of Correction et al

Filing 6

INITIAL REVIEW ORDER Plaintiff's Complaint (Dkt. 1 ) is DISMISSED; Plaintiff's Motion to Appoint Counsel (Dkt. 4 ) is DENIED as MOOT; and Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED asMOOT. Signed by Judge B. Lynn Winmill. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (jm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO

ROBERT J. FIORE, II,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 1:11-cv-00552-BLW
INITIAL REVIEW ORDER

v.
IDAHO DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS, CMS HEALTH
MANAGEMENT, BRENT REINKE,
VICKEY SOUTHWICK, JOHANNA
SMITH, SHELL WAMBLE FISHER,
JAMES NIELSON, SHARON
PETERSON, WENDY GREENWELL,
RUTH BARBIERLYN, KISTI
STEPHENSON, JUSTIN WOODELL,
MOLLY, S. VOODSTAN, STEPHENS,
ALAX FRANCOISE, M. AUSTIN, M.
BAIRYMAN, KIM EDWARDS,
ROMWELL,
Defendants.

The Clerk of Court conditionally filed Plaintiff’s Complaint as a result of his in
forma pauperis request. (Dkts. 1, 5). The Court now reviews Plaintiff’s Complaint to
determine whether it or any of the claims contained therein should be summarily
dismissed under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915 and 1915A. Having reviewed the record, and
otherwise being fully informed, the Court enters the following order dismissing

INITIAL REVIEW ORDER - 1 -

Plaintiff’s complaint without prejudice, and denying as moot Plaintiff’s request that he be
allowed to proceed in forma pauperis and have counsel appointed to represent him.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff was a prisoner of the Idaho Department of Correction, formerly housed at
the Idaho State Correctional Institution (ISCI), in Kuna, Idaho. Plaintiff claims that, on
November 26, 2009, he was given ten times the prescribed dose of his blood-pressure
medication. Plaintiff alleges that as a result of this overdoes he had a night of restless
sleep and later fell out of his bed, a top bunk, presumably sustaining injuries from the
fall.
According to Plaintiff, over his protestations, he was improperly given five (5.0)
milligrams of Clonidine instead of the prescribed amount of one half (0.5) a milligram by
Defendant Nurse Justin Woddell. Plaintiff states further that Woddell was being
supervised by Defendant Romwell, a sergeant at the prison, during the administration of
the medication. Plaintiff is suing twenty named defendants who all appear to be prison
and prison medical staff.
REVIEW OF COMPLAINT
A.

Standard
The Court is required to review in forma pauperis complaints to determine

whether summary dismissal is appropriate. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915. The Court must dismiss a
complaint or any portion thereof that states a claim that is frivolous or malicious, that
fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seeks monetary relief from
a defendant who is immune from such relief. § 1915(e).
INITIAL REVIEW ORDER - 2 -

Plaintiff bring his claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the civil rights statute. To state a
claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege a violation of rights protected by the
Constitution or created by federal statute proximately caused by conduct of a person
acting under color of state law. Crumpton v. Gates, 947 F.2d 1418, 1420 (9th Cir. 1991).
Plaintiff brings three claims: (1) medical indifference; (2) deliberate indifference; and (3)
cruel and unusual punishment. All of these claims arise from the Eight Amendment.
B.

Eight Amendment Medical Claims
To prevail on an Eighth Amendment claim regarding prison medical care, Plaintiff

must show that prison officials’ “acts or omissions [were] sufficiently harmful to
evidence deliberate indifference to serious medical needs.” Hudson v. McMillian, 503
U.S. 1, 8 (1992) (citing Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 103-04 (1976)). The Supreme
Court has opined that “[b]ecause society does not expect that prisoners will have
unqualified access to health care, deliberate indifference to medical needs amounts to an
Eighth Amendment violation only if those needs are ‘serious.’” Id.
The Ninth Circuit has defined a “serious medical need” in the following ways:
failure to treat a prisoner's condition [that] could result in further significant
injury or the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain; . . . [t]he existence
of an inj ury that a reasonable doctor or patient woul d find im portant and
worthy of comment or treatment; the pr esence of a m edical condition that
significantly affects an individual's daily activities; or the exis tence of
chronic and substantial pain.
McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1059-60 (9th Cir. 1992), overruled on other grounds,
WMX Technologies, Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir. 1997).

INITIAL REVIEW ORDER - 3 -

Deliberate indifference exists when an official knows of and disregards a serious
medical condition or when an official is "aware of facts from which the inference could
be drawn that a substantial risk of harm exists,” and actually draws such an inference.
Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 838 (1994). Differences in judgment between an
inmate and prison medical personnel regarding appropriate medical diagnosis and
treatment are not enough to establish a deliberate indifference claim. See Sanchez v. Vild,
891 F.2d 240, 242 (9th Cir. 1989). Mere indifference, medical malpractice, or negligence
also will not support a cause of action under the Eighth Amendment. Broughton v.
Cutter Lab, 622 F.2d 458, 460 (9th Cir. 1980). A mere delay in treatment does not
constitute a violation of the Eighth Amendment, unless the delay causes serious harm.
Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335 (9th Cir. 1990).
Here, Plaintiff claims that he was over-medicated once and that as a result, he
suffered one night of restless sleep and fell out of his bed, presumably sustaining injury.
For an inmate to state a claim under § 1983 for medical mistreatment or denial of medical
care, the prisoner must allege “acts or omissions sufficiently harmful to evidence
deliberate indifference to serious medical needs.” Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 8
(1992) (citing Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976)). While Plaintiff has stated his
claims with sufficient particularity, his allegations do not meet the deliberate indifference
standard required to maintain an action. Plaintiff’s own account of what happened shows
that he was being consistently treated, that the over-dose was an anomalous event, and
that his injuries are de minimus. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Complaint (Dkt. 1) shall be
dismissed.
INITIAL REVIEW ORDER - 4 -

D.

Motion for in forma pauperis status and for Appointment of Counsel
With his Complaint, Plaintiff also filed a Motion for Appointment of Counsel

(Dkt. 4) and Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis. (Dkt. 5). Because of the dismissal of
Plaintiff’s Complaint, these motions will be deemed moot and denied accordingly.
ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED:
1. Plaintiff’s Complaint (Dkt. 1) is DISMISSED;
2. Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Counsel (Dkt. 4) is DENIED as MOOT; and
3. Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED as

MOOT.

DATED: April 12, 2012

Honorable B. Lynn Winmill
Chief U. S. District Judge

INITIAL REVIEW ORDER - 5 -