Hegwood v. Moore et al
Filing
5
OPINION AND ORDER: This case is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and the 3 request for service ofprocess is DENIED AS MOOT, ***Civil Case Terminated.. Signed by Judge Rudy Lozano on 12/9/14. (jld)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION
MICHAEL A. HEGWOOD,
Plaintiff,
vs.
SGT. MOORE, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CAUSE NO. 3:14-CV-2022
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the: (1) Prisoner Complaint
42 U.S.C. 1983 (DE #1); and (2) Request for Service of Process by
United States Marshal’s Service (DE #3), both filed by Plaintiff,
Michael A. Hegwood, a pro se prisoner, on November 12, 2014.
For
the reasons set forth below, the complaint is DISMISSED WITH
PREJUDICE pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and the request for service
of process (DE #3) is DENIED AS MOOT.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff, Michael A. Hegwood, is currently incarcerated at
the Miami Correctional Facility (“Miami”) and has filed suit
against Defendants, Sgt. Moore, Major Hale and Supt. Sevier.
According to the complaint, sometime in November 2012, Sgt. Moore
tossed a tray full of food through the dish tank where Plaintiff
was working.
The food on the tray hit his left eye, causing pain
and blurry vision.
Sgt. Moore then came into the dish tank and
announced, “I threw that tray in here.
I don’t care if your mama
comes to that window, no food is to come out of that window.”
(DE
1, p. 3.)
Plaintiff filled out an injury/incident report and was sent to
the infirmary.
After several eye examinations, Plaintiff’s vision
in his left eye is still distorted.
Plaintiff informed Major Hale and Supt. Sevier of Sgt. Moore’s
actions, but they did nothing in response. In fact, Plaintiff
alleges Supt. Sevier denied him the right to file a grievance about
the incident.
Plaintiff further asserts that both Major Hale and
Supt. Sevier knew about Sgt. Moore’s prior aggressive acts at the
prison and did nothing to prevent what happened in this case.
DISCUSSION
Standard of Review
The court must review a prisoner complaint and dismiss it if
the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim, or
seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such
relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. To survive dismissal, a complaint must
state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face.
Bissessur
v. Indiana Univ. Bd. of Trs., 581 F.3d 599, 602-03 (7th Cir. 2009).
“A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual
content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that
2
the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”
Id. at 603.
Thus, a “plaintiff must do better than putting a few words on paper
that, in the hands of an imaginative reader, might suggest that
something has happened to [him] that might be redressed by the
law.”
Swanson v. Citibank, N.A., 614 F.3d 400, 403 (7th Cir.
2010).
Nevertheless, the court must bear in mind that a pro se
complaint is entitled to liberal construction, “however inartfully
pleaded.”
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007).
Plaintiff brings an Eighth Amendment claim against Sgt. Moore
due to his tossing of the food tray, which resulted in Plaintiff’s
injury.
In evaluating an Eighth Amendment claim, courts conduct
both an objective and a subjective inquiry. Farmer v. Brennan, 511
U.S. 825, 834 (1994). The objective prong asks whether the alleged
deprivation is “sufficiently serious” so that “a prison official’s
act results in the denial of the minimal civilized measure of
life’s necessities.”
Id.
On the subjective prong, the inmate must show the defendant
acted with deliberate indifference to his health or safety.
Id.
This includes the “unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain” upon
prisoners by prison officials.
296 (1991).
Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294,
Thus, to state a constitutional violation against a
prison officer, a plaintiff must show that he acted “maliciously
and sadistically for the very purpose of causing harm.”
Id.
Indeed, “negligence or even gross negligence is not enough; rather
3
the
plaintiffs
must
show
the
actual
intent
or
deliberate
indifference on the part of state actors in order to make out an
eighth amendment claim.”
James v. Milwaukee Co., 956 F.2d 696,
699 (7th Cir. 1992).
Here, the allegations of the complaint fall short of an Eighth
Amendment violation.
As explained above, simply because Plaintiff
was injured by Sgt. Moore’s conduct does not necessarily lead to a
constitutional
violation.
Because
there
is
nothing
in
the
complaint to suggest, or plausibly infer, that Sgt. Moore tossed
the tray through the dish tank “maliciously and sadistically for
the very purpose of causing harm to Hegwood,” there is no viable
Eighth Amendment claim. Harper v. Albert, 400 F.3d 1052, 1065 (7th
Cir. 2005)(noting that even if a prisoner suffers an objectively
serious injury at the hand of an officer, a constitutional claim
can not be stated unless that injury was due to the officer
“maliciously or sadistically caus[ing] harm.”).
While tossing the
tray through the dish tank was unquestionably a poor decision - one
that ultimately led to Plaintiff’s injury- it can be characterized
as nothing more than gross negligence, which does not rise to an
Eighth Amendment claim.
James, 956 F.2d at 699.
Plaintiff next claims that because Supt. Sevier and Major Hale
knew of Sgt. Moore’s history of aggression and did nothing about
it, they are responsible for failing to protect him in this case
under the Eighth Amendment.
A prison official will be held liable
4
for
failing
to
protect
an
inmate
only
if
his
deliberate
indifference to the prisoner’s welfare “effectively condones the
attack by allowing it to happen.”
756 (7th Cir. 2010).
Santiago v. Walls, 599 F.3d 749,
To state a claim, the plaintiff must “allege
facts sufficient to show that the defendant had actual knowledge of
an impending harm easily preventable, so that a conscious, culpable
refusal to prevent the harm can be inferred from the defendant’s
failure to prevent it.”
Id.
Negligent or even grossly negligent
behavior by the defendant does not suffice. Grieveson, 538 F.3d at
777.
There are no allegations that either Supt. Sevier or Major
Hale had any actual knowledge Sgt. Moore was going to toss the tray
into the dish tank.
the incident.
Indeed, Plaintiff, himself, was surprised by
Because the tossing of the tray was an unforeseen
event, there can be no liability for failure to protect against it.
Santiago, 599 F.3d at 756.
Plaintiff next claims Supt. Sevier and Major Hale failed to
properly investigate the tray tossing incident. Plaintiff does not
allege, nor is it reasonable to infer from the complaint, that
either of these officials played a direct role in the tray tossing
incident.
Instead, he brings suit against them for not taking any
action against Sgt. Moore after Plaintiff notified them of the
incident.
“Section 1983 does not establish a system of vicarious
responsibility” and “public employees are responsible for their own
5
misdeeds but not for anyone else’s.”
592, 593 (7th Cir. 2009).
Burks v. Raemisch, 555 F.3d
As the Seventh Circuit has explained:
Bureaucracies divide tasks; no prisoner is entitled to
insist that one employee do another’s job. The division
of labor is important not only to bureaucratic
organization but also to efficient performance of tasks;
people who stay within their roles can get more work
done, more effectively, and cannot be hit with damages
under §1983 for not being ombudsmen. [The] view that
everyone who knows about a prisoner’s problem must pay
damages implies that [a prisoner] could write letters to
the Governor of Wisconsin and 999 other public officials,
demand that every one of those 1,000 officials drop
everything he or she is doing in order to investigate a
single prisoner’s claims, and then collect damages from
all 1,000 recipients if the letter-writing campaign does
not lead to better medical care. That can’t be right.
The Governor, and for that matter the Superintendent of
Prisons and the Warden of each prison, is entitled to
relegate to the prison’s medical staff the provision of
good medical care.
Id. at 595.
Nothing in the complaint indicates that Supt. Sevier or Major
Hale did anything to cause or exacerbate Plaintiff’s injury.
Therefore, this claim cannot be maintained.
Lastly, Plaintiff claims Supt. Sevier denied him the right to
file a grievance regarding Sgt. Moore tossing the tray and causing
his eye injury.
Although Plaintiff does not detail this in his
complaint, it is of no consequence.
Prison grievance procedures
“do not give rise to a liberty interest protected by the Due
Process Clause.”
Cir. 2008).
Grieveson v. Anderson, 538 F.3d 763, 772 (7th
As a result, his complaints about the grievance
process do not state a constitutional claim. Owens v. Hinsley, 635
6
F.3d 950, 953 (7th Cir. 2011).
As a final note, because Hegwood has no plausible claim, his
request for service of process is DENIED AS MOOT.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the complaint is DISMISSED
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and the request for service of
process (DE #3) is DENIED AS MOOT.
DATED: December 9, 2014
/s/ RUDY LOZANO, Judge
United States District Court
7
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?