Sharp v. Neal

Filing 7

OPINION AND ORDER: The Court DIRECTS the clerk to place this cause number on a blank Prisoner Complaint form (INND Rev. 8/16) and sent it to Anthony P. Sharp, Jr. and GRANTS Anthony P. Sharp, Jr. to and including 7/16/18 to file a second amended comp laint. If Mr. Sharp doesn't respond by the deadline this case will be dismissed without further notice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A because the current complaint does not state a claim. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 6/13/18. (Copy mailed as directed in Order). (nal)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION
ANTHONY P. SHARP, JR.,
Plaintiff,
v.

CAUSE NO.: 3:18-CV-187-RLM-MGG

RON NEAL,
Defendant.

OPINION AND ORDER
Anthony P. Sharp, Jr., a prisoner without a lawyer, slipped and fell on ice
while housed at the Indiana State Prison. As a result of that fall, he has filed an
amended complaint (ECF 6) suing Warden Ron Neal, Officer Moore, and Sgt.
Moon. “A document filed pro se is to be liberally construed, and a pro se
complaint, however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards
than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94
(2007). Nevertheless, the court must review the merits of a prisoner complaint.
28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
Mr. Sharp alleges that, on December 29, 2017, while being escorted by
Officer Moore to the medical department, shackled at his wrists and legs, he
slipped and fell on steps covered in snow and ice. He hurt his shoulder, ribs,
hip, and back. He was taken to the medical department and given ice for his
injuries, but no x-rays were taken and he wasn’t provided with pain
medication.
Mr. Sharp names Warden Ron Neal as a defendant, but the court has
already explained to Mr. Sharp that if Warden Neal wasn’t personally involved
in the incident, he can’t be held liable for it. Section 1983 “liability depends on
each defendant’s knowledge and actions, not on the knowledge or actions of

persons they supervise.” Burks v. Raemisch , 555 F.3d 592, 594 (7th Cir.
2009). “[P]ublic employees are responsible for their own misdeeds but not for
anyone else’s.” Id. at 596. The doctrine of respondeat superior, which allows an
employer to be held liable for subordinates’ actions in some types of cases,
doesn’t apply to § 1983 actions. Moore v. State of Indiana, 999 F.2d 1125,
1129 (7th Cir. 1993). Mr. Sharp doesn’t allege that Warden Neal was personally
involved in either taking him to the medical department when he fell or
determining what medical care he received after his fall. The amended
complaint doesn’t state a claim against Warden Neal.
Similarly, Mr. Sharp alleges that Sgt. Moon, who is in charge of the crew
that shovels snow, was responsible for failing to remedy the conditions that led
to Mr. Sharp’s fall. But the amended complaint doesn’t allege that Sgt. Moon
was aware of the need to clear ice and snow from the stairs or that he was
involved in the events leading up to Mr. Sharp’s fall. A claim of negligence isn’t
enough for a constitutional claim: a prisoner alleging deliberate indifference to
a hazardous condition of confinement, must “allege that [a defendant]
deliberately

ignored

a

prison

condition that

presented

an

objectively,

sufficiently serious risk of harm.” Pyles v. Fahim, 771 F.3d 403, 409 (7th Cir.
2014). “Federal courts consistently have adopted the view that slippery
surfaces and shower floors in prisons, without more, cannot constitute a
hazardous condition of confinement.” Id. Mr. Sharp hasn’t alleged that Sgt.
Moon did anything more than fail to promptly remove ice and snow from the
stairs; that doesn’t state a federal claim upon which relief can be granted.

2

Mr. Sharp alleges that Officer Moore was escorting him up the snow and
ice covered stairs while his wrists and legs were shackled, and that Officer
Moore failed to hold on to him adequately. This is insufficient to state a claim
because Mr. Sharp doesn’t allege that Officer Moore deliberately ignored
conditions presenting a sufficiently serious risk of harm. See Anderson v.
Morrison, 835 F.3d 681, 683 (7th Cir. 2016) (finding that Anderson stated a
claim against a guard who refused his request for assistance and forced
Anderson to traverse 13 stairs “clogged with several days’ of accumulated food
and rubbish” while handcuffed behind the back); Perkins v. Pfister, 711
Fed.Appx. 335, 337 (7th Cir. 2017) (distinguishing Anderson and finding an
inmate who alleged he was occasionally required to walk dry, uncluttered stairs
while handcuffed behind the back did not state a claim); Boclair v. Baldwin,
Case No. 17CV142, 2017WL6813694, *3 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 28, 2017) (icy path
where prisoner slipped “did not present a danger so perilous as to implicate the
Eighth Amendment.”). Mr. Sharp doesn’t describe how he was shackled, or
explain if he had any ability to use his hands to hold on to a handrail. He
doesn’t describe how many stairs he was required to climb. He doesn’t describe
the conditions of the stairs in any detail, other than indicating they were
covered with snow and ice. While Mr. Sharp alleges that Officer Moore failed to
hold on to him, he doesn’t indicate if he asked Officer Moore for assistance
and, if so, how Officer Moore responded to his request. And it’s unclear if Mr.
Sharp’s medical condition contributed to his ability to navigate the stairs, or
whether Officer Moore was aware of his medical condition or its impact on Mr.

3

Sharp. Without more details, the amended complaint doesn’t state a claim
upon which relief can be granted against Officer Moore.
Mr. Sharp complains about the medical care he received from Nurse
Suzanna, but he doesn’t name her or any other medical provider as a
defendant. Under the Eighth Amendment, inmates are entitled to adequate
medical care. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976). To establish liability,
a prisoner must satisfy both an objective and subjective component by
showing: (1) his medical need was objectively serious; and (2) the defendant
acted with deliberate indifference to that medical need. Farmer v. Brennan, 511
U.S. 825, 834 (1994). A medical need is “serious” if it is one that a physician
has diagnosed as mandating treatment, or one that is so obvious that even a
lay person would easily recognize the necessity for a doctor’s attention. Greeno
v. Daley, 414 F.3d 645, 653 (7th Cir. 2005). Deliberate indifference means that
the defendant “acted in an intentional or criminally reckless manner, i.e., the
defendant must have known that the plaintiff was at serious risk of being
harmed and decided not to do anything to prevent that harm from occurring
even though he could have easily done so.” Board v. Farnham, 394 F.3d 469,
478 (7th Cir. 2005). Nurse Suzanna provided some medical care for Mr.
Sharp’s injuries: she gave him ice. While Mr. Sharp alleges he was send back to
his cell in excruciating pain, it’s not clear if he communicated to Nurse
Suzanna or anyone else the extent of his pain, or that he asked for pain
medication. Mr. Sharp also indicates that X-rays weren’t taken, but it’s unclear
why he believes X-rays were warranted. In short, the amended complaint

4

asserts no facts suggesting that any of the defendants named in this lawsuit or
even Nurse Suzanna, who isn’t named, were deliberately indifferent to Mr.
Sharp’s medical needs.
While the amended complaint doesn’t state a claim, the court will give
Mr. Sharp another opportunity to replead his claims. Luevano v. WalMart
Stores, Inc., 722 F.3d 1014, 1022-23, 1025 (7th Cir. 2013); Loubser v.
Thacker, 440 F.3d 439, 443 (7th Cir. 2006). In the second amended complaint,
he should explain in his own words what happened, when it happened, where
it happened, who was involved, and how he was personally injured by the
conditions he describes, providing as much detail as possible.
For these reasons, the court:
(1) DIRECTS the clerk to place this cause number on a blank
Prisoner Complaint form (INND Rev. 8/16) and sent it to Anthony P.
Sharp, Jr.; and
(2) GRANTS Anthony P. Sharp, Jr. to and including July 16, 2018,
to file a second amended complaint.
If Mr. Sharp doesn’t respond by the deadline, this case will be dismissed
without further notice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A because the current
complaint does not state a claim.
SO ORDERED on June 13, 2018
s/ Robert L. Miller, Jr.
JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5