Parks v. Reans et al
Filing
19
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: (1) Plaintiff Darrell James Parks' Complaint [R. 2 ] is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; (2) The Court shall enter an appropriate judgment; (3) This action is STRICKEN from the docket of the Court. Signed by Judge Karl S. Forester on 5/21/12.(SYD)cc: mailed to pro se filer
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
SOUTHERN DIVISION AT LONDON
DARRELL PARKS,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Plaintiff,
v.
MR. REANS, et al.,
Defendants.
Civil Action No. 6:10-CV-000278-KSF
MEMORANDUM OPINION
AND ORDER
***** ***** ***** *****
Darrell Parks, an inmate confined in the United States Penitentiary in Lewisburg,
Pennsylvania, has filed a pro se civil rights complaint asserting various constitutional claims under
28 U.S.C. § 1331, pursuant to the doctrine announced in Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Narcotics
Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). [R. 2] Parks’ claims arise from events which he alleged occurred in
October 2009, while he was confined in the United States Penitentiary-McCreary, (“USPMcCreary”), located in Pine Knot, Kentucky.1
Because the Court has granted Parks’ motion to pay the filing fee in installments [R. 4] and
because he is asserting claims against government officials, the Court screens his complaint pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A and 1915(e). These sections require a district court to dismiss any claims that
are frivolous or malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seek monetary
relief from defendants who are immune from such relief. Id.; McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d
1
The defendants, all USP-McCreary officials, are: (1) Mr. Reans, Correctional Officer; (2)
Ms. Davis, Correctional Officer; (3) V. Barnett, Clinical Nurse; (4) Ms. Gregory, Health Service
Administrator; (5) Eric D. Wilson, former Warden; and (6) John Doe Defendant, Special
Investigations Services (“SIS”). Parks sued the defendants in their official capacities. [R. 2, p. 3]
601, 607-08 (6th Cir. 1997). For the reasons set forth below, Parks’ constitutional claims must be
dismissed for failure to state a claim.
ALLEGATIONS OF THE COMPLAINT
Parks alleged that on October 22, 2009, he was handcuffed and that defendant Mr. Reans,
a correctional officer at USP-McCreary, was escorting him to his cell after a disciplinary hearing
had concluded. Parks had a verbal exchange with Reans wherein Parks demanded to be taken to his
counselor. Parks described in detail a scuffle which ensued between Reans and himself once they
reached his cell. Parks’ account of the scuffle is confusing, but he appears to allege that while
correctional officer Davis was closing the door to his cell, or causing the door to his cell to be closed
at Reans’ direction, Reans violently pulled, grabbed, or yanked the hand cuffs from Parks’ wrist
through the food tray slot of the cell door. Parks alleged that the violent removal of his hand cuffs
caused him to fall to the floor in writhing pain, and that other inmates pressed a button to call for
emergency assistance. Parks alleged that Reans’ violent actions constituted excessive force and
were completely unwarranted because he was cooperating with Reans’ efforts to remove the hand
cuffs and was not resisting Reans. Parks further alleges that although he placed former Warden Eric
Wilson on notice of Reans’ and Davis’ alleged misconduct, Wilson “failed to take necessary
disciplinary action against them or otherwise to control their behavior.” [R. 2, pp. 5-6, ¶ 31]
Parks states that immediately after this incident, he informed Lieutenant Baker that Reans
and Davis had injured him, and that Baker requested an SIS Officer, whom Parks identified as a John
Doe SIS Defendant, to investigate Parks’ allegations of staff abuse. [Id., p. 5, ¶ 29] Parks stated that
the John Doe SIS official immediately informed him that the footage of the scuffle was no longer
2
in existence. [Id., ¶ 30] Parks alleges that the failure to maintain the video footage violates the
Bureau of Prisons’ (“BOP”) security policies.
Parks states that on that same day, October 22, 2009, defendant V. Barnett, a clinical nurse
at USP-McCreary, interviewed him about his medical condition. Parks complains that Barnett wrote
her medical notes from the interview on only a “piece of napkin/paper.” [Id., ¶¶ 35 & 39]. He
claims that Barnett failed to properly document, assess, diagnose, and order the proper treatment
either for his physical pain or his shoulder injury. Specifically, he alleges that Barnett failed to write
in her notes that he was experiencing severe pain, and claims that she should have ordered him to
undergo a Magnetic Resonance Image (MRI) test, X-rays, an orthopedic evaluation, and a
neurological evaluation.
Parks alleges that Eric Wilson, former Warden of USP-McCreary, was responsible for
arranging “specialized medical care inside and outside the prison,” [Id., p. 6, ¶ 40], and that
defendant Ms. Gregory was generally responsible for ensuring that prisoners receive medical
treatment, including specialized medical treatment, if necessary. [Id., p. 3, ¶ 11] Parks alleges that
when he was transferred from USP-McCreary- six months after the events alleged in his Complainthe had never received any of the above-listed medical treatment. He further alleges that he continues
to experience excruciating pain from his shoulder injury and that he has sustained permanent
disability of his shoulder, arm, and wrist.
Parks alleges that on October 23, 2009, he submitted a grievance “regarding the assaultexcessive/unnecessary/misuse of force.” [Id., p. 36, ¶ 37] Parks does not identify the specific type
of grievance he filed, i.e., whether it was an informal grievance, a formal request for a remedy, or
3
an appeal, nor does he identify the person to whom he allegedly submitted the grievance(s).2 Parks
lists no other exhaustion efforts regarding any of his claims, stating that when he tried to utilize the
grievance process, “it was to no avail and now [Parks] seeks proper adjudication in this Court.” [Id.,
p. 2, ¶ 5].
Parks’ claim that Reans and Davis used excessive force to remove handcuffs from him, and
his claim that Barnett, Wilson, and Gregory failed to provide him with necessary medical treatment,
fall under the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution, which prohibits cruel and
unusual punishment. Parks also broadly alleges that the defendants violated his right to due process
of law guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Parks seeks
compensatory damages, punitive damages, and injunctive relief, i.e., an Order directing USPMcCreary officials to (1) transport him to qualified outside medical professionals who could properly
diagnose and treat his injuries, and (2) ensure that all video cameras in the prison are operational and
that all video footage is properly maintained. He also requests the appointment of counsel.
DISCUSSION
In his complaint, Parks expressly states that he is asserting claims against the defendants only
in their official capacities. [R. 2 at 3] These claims must be dismissed because federal employees
sued in their official capacity are immune from suit unless sovereign immunity has been expressly
waived. Hampton v. Marion, 98 F. App’x 410, 412 (6th Cir. 2004); Blakely v. United States, 276
2
Parks stated only that:
On information & belief, when a prisoner files a grievance, the grievance staff calls
the matter to the attention of those individuals responsible for the matter that the
grievance concerns.
[Id., ¶ 38].
4
F.3d 853, 870 (6th Cir. 2002). The United States has not waived its immunity from suits alleging
constitutional violations: “A Bivens claim [for damages] may not be asserted against a federal
officer in his federal capacity.” Plunkett v. Luttrell, 1995 WL 236669, at *2 (6th Cir. 1995) (citing
Berger v. Pierce, 933 F.2d 393, 397 (6th Cir. 1991)). The only proper defendants to a Bivens action
are federal officials named in their individual capacities. Center for Bio-Ethical Reform, Inc. v.
Napolitano, 648 F.3d 365, 370 (6th Cir. 2011); Okoro v. Scibana, 63 F. App’x 182, 184 (6th Cir.
2003). Thus, Parks’ claims seeking damages from the defendants must be dismissed because the
defendants are immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(B)(iii).
Parks’ requests for injunctive relief will also be denied. Parks was confined in the United
States Penitentiary located in Adelanto, California, when he filed this action [see R. 2, p. 1] yet he
demanded that USP-McCreary officials provide him with specific medical treatment and take
measures to ensure that the prison video cameras are at all times functional. A prisoner’s claim for
declaratory and injunctive relief becomes moot once the prisoner is transferred from the prison of
which he complained to a different facility. Kensu v. Haigh, 87 F.3d 172, 175 (6th Cir.1996); Price
v. Caruso, 451 F. Supp.2d 889, 901 (E.D. Mich. 2006). Thus, Parks’ transfer from USP-McCreary
to another BOP institution rendered his requests for injunctive relief moot. Coleman v. Bowerman,
2012 WL 1109613, at *3 (6th Cir. 2012); Cardinal v. Metrish, 564 F.3d 794, 798-99 (6th Cir. 2009).
Parks’ requests for injunctive relief will be denied as moot.
Because this proceeding will be dismissed, the Court will deny as moot Parks’ request for
the appointment of counsel.
5
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED as follows:
(1)
Plaintiff Darrell James Parks’ Complaint [R. 2] is DISMISSED WITH
PREJUDICE;
(2)
The Court shall enter an appropriate judgment;
(3)
This action is STRICKEN from the docket of the Court.
This May 21, 2012.
6
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?