LONG v. WHITE et al

Filing 45

ENTRY - Plaintiff Bobby Ray Long's motion for leave to amend his civil rights complaint 37 is granted. The clerk is directed to re-docket the tendered amended complaint [37-1] as the amended complaint. Defendant Christopher White is dismis sed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Sheriff John Layton is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Defendant Warren Hoosier, a Sheriff Deputy, is dismissed for failure to state a cla im upon which relief may be granted. The clerk is designated, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3), to issue and serve process on the defendants in the manner specified by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d)(1). Process shall consist of the amended complaint, applicable forms and this Entry. (SEE ENTRY). Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 12/13/2012. (copies to Long, Quarlos, Moore and Rohana via US Mail) (JKS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
BOBBY RAY LONG,
Plaintiff,
vs.
CHRISTOPHER WHITE, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:12-cv-32-JMS-MJD

Entry Discussing Amended Complaint, Dismissing Certain Claims,
And Directing Further Proceedings
Plaintiff Bobby Ray Long’s motion for leave to amend his civil rights
complaint [37] is granted. The clerk is directed to re-docket the tendered
amended complaint [37-1] as the amended complaint.
I.
The amended complaint alleges that Christopher White, John Layton,
Kamyia Quarlos, Lisa Moore, Marcel Rohana, and Warren Hoosier violated his
constitutional rights by denying him pain medication and scheduled back surgery at
the Veterans Hospital (VA) while he was a pre-trial detainee at the Marion County
Jail. The claims are brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Long seeks a declaratory
judgment and money damages.
The amended complaint is subject to screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)
(B). This statute requires the court to dismiss a complaint if it is frivolous or
malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, or seeks monetary relief against a
defendant who is immune from such relief. In determining whether the complaint
states a claim, the Court applies the same standard as when addressing a motion to
dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). See Lagerstrom v. Kingston,
463 F.3d 621, 624 (7th Cir. 2006). To survive a motion to dismiss, the complaint
“must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief
that is plausible on its face. . . . A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff
pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that
the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct.
1937, 1949 (2009) (quotations omitted). Pro se complaints such as that filed by

Bobby Ray Long, are construed liberally and held to a less stringent standard than
formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. Obriecht v. Raemisch, 517 F.3d 489, 491 n.2
(7th Cir. 2008).
Section 1983 is not itself a source of substantive rights; instead it is a means
for vindicating federal rights elsewhere conferred.” Ledford v. Sullivan, 105 F.3d
354, 356 (7th Cir. 1997) (citing Baker v. McCollan, 443 U.S. 137, 144 n.3 (1979)).
“[T]he first step in any [' 1983] claim is to identify the specific constitutional right
infringed.” Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266, 271 (1994); see Conyers v. Abitz, 416
F.3d 580, 586 (7th Cir. 2005) (A[C]onstitutional claims must be addressed under the
most applicable provision.@). The constitution imposes a duty on prison officials to
provide medical care to inmates. See Vance v. Peters, 97 F.3d 987, 991 (7th Cir.
1996), cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1230 (1997). Because Long was a pretrial detainee, it is
the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment rather than the Eighth
Amendment's proscription against cruel and unusual punishment which is the
source of this right. Estate of Miller, ex rel. Bertram v. Tobiasz, 680 F.3d 984, 989
(7th Cir. 2012) (citing Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 535–37 (1979)). However, courts
still look to Eighth Amendment case law in addressing the claims of pretrial
detainees, given that the protections of the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process
clause are at least as broad as those that the Eighth Amendment affords to
convicted prisoners. Rice ex rel. Rice v. Correctional Medical Services, 675 F.3d 650,
664 (7th Cir. 2012) (citing cases); Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 31 (1993) (“It is
undisputed that the treatment a prisoner receives in prison and the conditions
under which he is confined are subject to scrutiny under the Eighth Amendment.”).
In order for a pretrial detainee 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.”
Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976). To determine whether an inmate's
Eighth Amendment rights were violated by a deprivation, we examine the alleged
violation both objectively and subjectively. “First, the deprivation alleged must be
objectively, sufficiently serious.” Sanville v. McCaughtry, 266 F.3d 724, 733 (7th Cir.
2001) (quoting Farmer, 511 U.S. at 832). “Second, the mental state of the prison
official must have been ‘one of deliberate indifference to inmate health or safety.’”
Id.
A corollary to the element of deliberate indifference of a claim such as
asserted here is that the defendant can only be liable for the actions or omissions in
which he personally participated. Sanville v. McCaughtry, 266 F.3d 724, 734 (7th
Cir. 2001). “[A]n official meets the personal involvement requirement when she acts
or fails to act with a deliberate or reckless disregard of plaintiff’s constitutional
rights, or if the conduct causing the constitutional deprivation occurs at her
direction or with her knowledge and consent.” Black v. Lane, 22 F.3d 1395, 1401
(7th Cir. 1994) (quoting Smith v. Rowe, 761 F.2d 360, 369 (7th Cir. 1985)) (citations

and internal quotations omitted). Without such an allegation—a complaint must
allege facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face, Limestone
Development Corp. v. Village of Lemont, Ill., 520 F.3d 797, 803 (7th Cir. 2008)
(citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007))—there could be no recovery
under 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. Burks v. Raemisch, 555 F.3d 592, 593-94 (7th Cir. 2009)
(ASection 1983 does not establish a system of vicarious responsibility. Liability
depends on each defendant's knowledge and actions, not on the knowledge or
actions of persons they supervise. . . . Monell's rule [is] that public employees are
responsible for their own misdeeds but not for anyone else’s.@) (citing Monell v. New
York City Dep't of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978)).
II.
Applying the standards set forth above, certain claims against defendants
Christopher White, John Layton, and Warren Hoosier are dismissed while claims
against Kamyia Quarlos, Lisa Moore, Marcel Rohana may proceed.
Defendant Christopher White is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted. The only allegation against White, a detective with the
Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department, is that Detective White arrested
Long on August 4, 2011, for fighting in a bar a few days earlier. Detective White
transferred Long to the Arrestee Process Center and allowed Long to keep his
walking cane during the transfer. Detective White allegedly failed to inform
employees at the Processing Center of Long’s medical condition and need for back
surgery on August 17, 2011. Long goes on to allege that he informed the defendants
Quarlos, Moore, Rohana, and Hoosier of his medical need and scheduled surgery
when he arrived at the processing center. These allegations are insufficient to state
a claim upon which relief may be granted as to Detective White. There is no
indication that Detective White was responsible for denying Long access to the
surgery he needed to treat his serious medical need, the fact that Detective White
failed to inform employees at the Processing Center of Long’s purported medical
needs is irrelevant because Long was given the opportunity to provide this
information himself.
Sheriff John Layton is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted. The only allegation against the Sheriff is that he failed to enact a
policy that allows for prisoners to be treated with medications and surgery at the
VA. Prisoners do not have a constitutional right to be provided care at any specific
hospital. Sheriff Layton’s failure to put in place a policy which suits Long’s
preferences is not actionable under § 1983. It is well-settled that while incarcerated,
an inmate is not entitled to the best possible care or to receive particular treatment
of his choice. See Forbes v. Edgar, 112 F.3d 262, 267 (7th Cir. 1997).
Defendant Warren Hoosier, a Sheriff Deputy, is dismissed for failure to state

a claim upon which relief may be granted. Deputy Hoosier was allegedly informed of
Long’s medical condition and that a surgery had been scheduled for Long at the VA.
There are no allegations upon which the court could conclude that Deputy Hoosier
was responsible for Long’s medical care or that he interfered with the medical
providers’ treatment decisions.
Long alleges that Kamyia Quarlos, Lisa Moore, Marcel Rohana are each
medical care providers at the Marion County Jail. Long asserts that he informed
these defendants of his serious medical need of back pain and a pinched spinal
nerve and that back surgery had been scheduled at the VA for August 17, 2011.
These defendants allegedly took no action to provide him with pain medication
between August 4, 2011, and August 17, 2011. The August 17, 2011, surgery was
cancelled and ultimately took place at the VA on January 31, 2012. The claim of
deliberate indifference to a serious medical need related to pain management and
treatment for a pinched spinal nerve may proceed against these three medical care
providers. The court notes that although Long was not entitled to the best possible
care or to receive particular treatment of his choice, he was entitled to
constitutionally adequate medical care.
III.
The clerk is designated, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3), to issue and serve
process on the defendants in the manner specified by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d)(1). Process
shall consist of the amended complaint, applicable forms and this Entry.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
_______________________________

12/13/2012
Date: __________________

Hon. Jane Magnus-Stinson, Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana

Distribution:
BOBBY RAY LONG
842 North Dequincy Street
Indianapolis, IN 46201
Kamyia Quarlos, CNA
Marion County Jail
40 South Alabama Street
Indianapolis, IN 46201

Lisa Moore, Medical Assistant
Marion County Jail
40 South Alabama Street
Indianapolis, IN 46201
Marcel Rohana, Doctor
Marion County Jail
40 South Alabama Street
Indianapolis, IN 46204