Andrews v. Elmore County Detention Center Medical Staff et al

Filing 6

INITIAL REVIEW ORDER deeming as moot 1 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis; denying without prejudice, Plaintiff's request for the appointment of counsel, contained within his Complaint 3 . Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint no later that 30 days from the date of this Order. together with any amended complaint, Plaintiff shall file a motion, labeled "Motion to Proceed with Amended Complaint. Alternatively, Plaintiff may choose to voluntarily dismiss his Complaint, without prejudice, by filing a notice of voluntary dismissal with the Court. Signed by Judge Candy W. Dale. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (cjm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO

RUSSELL SCOTT ANDREWS, JR.,
Case No. 1:12-cv-00311-CWD
Plaintiff,
v.
INITIAL REVIEW ORDER
ELMORE COUNTY DETENTION
CENTER MEDICAL STAFF, SHERIFF
RICK LAYER,
Defendants.

The Clerk of Court conditionally filed Russell Scott Andrews’s Complaint because
of his inmate status and in forma pauperis request. The Court must review Plaintiff’s
Complaint to determine whether it or any of its claims are subject to summary dismissal
under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A. Plaintiff has consented to a United States
Magistrate Judge conducting all proceedings, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
(Dkt. 4.)
Having reviewed the record, and otherwise being fully informed, the Court enters
the following Order.

INITIAL REVIEW ORDER - 1

STANDARD OF LAW
The Court is required to review prisoner complaints seeking relief against a
governmental entity or an officer or employee of a governmental entity to determine
whether summary dismissal is appropriate. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The Court must dismiss a
prisoner or in forma pauperis 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. 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B); § 1915A(b).
A complaint should also be dismissed under Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure if the factual assertions in the complaint, taken as true, are insufficient for the
reviewing court plausibly “to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable
for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). “Threadbare
recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do
not suffice.” Id.
Plaintiff brings his claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the civil rights statute. To state
a valid claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege a violation of rights protected by the
Constitution or created by federal statute proximately caused by the conduct of a person
acting under color of state law. Crumpton v. Gates, 947 F.2d 1418, 1420 (9th Cir. 1991).
A prison official is not liable under § 1983 unless he or she personally participated in the
alleged constitutional violations or, as a supervisor, knew of and failed to prevent those
violations. Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989).
INITIAL REVIEW ORDER - 2

REVIEW OF THE COMPLAINT
Plaintiff alleges that, while he was detained at the Elmore County Detention
Center in January of 2011, medical staff “removed” his prescribed medications, causing
him serious mental and physical pain and suffering. (Complaint, Dkt. 3, pp. 1-2.)
Plaintiff’s allegations are otherwise exceptionally vague; he does not indicate what his
medical condition was, which medications were stopped, whether he received some other
medical treatment, or the precise nature of his injuries. And rather than identifying the jail
personnel who made the decision to stop his medication, he lists the “Elmore County
Detention Center Medical Staff” as defendants, which is the equivalent of naming John
and Jane Does who are unknown and cannot be served with process. Sheriff Rick Layer,
also listed in the Complaint, may be an appropriate defendant based upon Plaintiff’s
allegations that he failed to supervise his staff and that he enforced a policy that resulted
in unconstitutional medical care, but Plaintiff does describe the jail’s policy regarding the
dispensing of medication that the Sheriff allegedly enforced.
Accordingly, because the Complaint currently contains no more than “[t]hreadbare
recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements,”
see Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, the Court finds that it is subject to dismissal under 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b) for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted.
Plaintiff will be given leave to amend his Complaint to cure these deficiencies.
Plaintiff is advised that to state a constitutional claim in an amended complaint regarding
inadequate medical care, he must allege facts tending to show that named defendants’
INITIAL REVIEW ORDER - 3

“acts or omissions [were] sufficiently harmful to evidence deliberate indifference to
serious medical needs.” Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976). “Because 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.’ ” Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 9 (1992).
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, 837 (1994). Deliberate indifference can be “manifested
by prison doctors in their response to the prisoner’s needs or by prison guards in
intentionally denying or delaying access to medical care or intentionally interfering with
the treatment once prescribed.” Estelle, 429 U.S. at 104-05 (footnotes omitted).
Disagreements between a prisoner and a medical professional, however, about the
appropriate course of treatment are insufficient to state a constitutional cause of action.
Sanchez v. Vild, 891 F.2d 240, 242 (9th Cir. 1989).
Because Plaintiff has not yet made it past the screening stage, his Application to
Proceed In Forma Pauperis will be deemed moot, but the Court will revisit the
Application if Plaintiff files an amended complaint. Even if Plaintiff is granted in forma
pauperis status, he still will be required to pay the full $350.00 filing fee, but it will be
taken out of his prison trust account in installments rather than up front at filing. 28
U.S.C. § 1915(b).
INITIAL REVIEW ORDER - 4

Plaintiff also seeks appointment of counsel. Unlike criminal defendants, prisoners
and indigents in civil actions have no constitutional right to counsel unless their physical
liberty is at stake. Lassiter v. Dept. of Social Services, 452 U.S. 18, 25 (1981). Whether a
court appoints counsel for indigent litigants is within the court's discretion. Terrell v.
Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991).
The Court does not have enough factual information about the case to determine
whether the claim or claims may be meritorious. The Court finds it appropriate to deny
Plaintiff’s request for counsel at this time, but it will reconsider appointment at a later
date when evidence addressing the merits of the claims has been presented to the Court.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED:
1.

Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Dkt. 1) is DEEMED
MOOT, subject to reconsideration in the event that Plaintiff files an
amended complaint.

2.

Plaintiff’s request for the appointment of counsel, contained within his
Complaint, is DENIED without prejudice.

3.

No later than 30 days from the date of this Order, Plaintiff shall file an
amended complaint to cure the deficiencies noted herein, or the case will be
dismissed without prejudice. Together with any amended complaint,
Plaintiff shall file a motion, labeled “Motion to Proceed with Amended
Complaint.” Alternatively, Plaintiff may choose to voluntarily dismiss his

INITIAL REVIEW ORDER - 5

Complaint, without prejudice, by filing a notice of voluntary dismissal with
the Court.
DATED: December 3, 2012

Honorable Candy W. Dale
United States Magistrate Judge

INITIAL REVIEW ORDER - 6