Bennett v. Green et al
MEMORANDUM. Signed by Judge James K. Bredar on 10/9/2015. (c/m 10/9/15 bas, Deputy Clerk)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
CHAUNCEY BENNETT, #259742
CIVIL ACTION NO. JKB-15-3029
KATHLEEN GREEN (Warden)
PHIL FORD (P.A.)
STEPHEN T. MOYER (Secretary D.P.S.C.S.) *
On October 6, 2015, Chauncey Bennett filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint, one of eight
civil rights actions he filed that same day. Bennett, who is confined at the Eastern Correctional
Institution (“ECI”), seeks miscellaneous relief along with compensatory and punitive damages. He
claims that on January 6, 2015, Physician’s Assistant Ford changed his medical front handcuffing
status without an examination per the request of the disciplinary segregation housing unit manager.
ECF No. 1. He further states that his medical handcuffing status was restored by a physician.1 Id.
The complaint was accompanied by an indigency application,. Because he appears indigent, Bennett
shall be granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
Section 1915A, Title 28, United States Code, provides for screening of any complaint “in
which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental
entity.” See McLean v. United States, 566 F.3d 391, 394 (4th Cir. 2009); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(A).
Before permitting the case to move forward or requiring a response from the defendants, “the court
In Bennett v. Green, et al., Civil Action No. JKB-15-3023 (D. Md.), Bennett claims that Dr.
Smith restored the front handcuffing order on January 22, 2015.
shall identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the
complaint (1) is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or
(2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.” See 28 U.S.C. §
1915A(b); see also Williamson v. Angelone, 197 F. Supp.2d 476, 478 (E.D. Va. 2001); see also
McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 608 (6th Cir. 1997).
The screening is necessary to
determine whether defendants should be required to respond to the action.
According to the statement of facts, Bennett’s medical order for front handcuffing was
changed without examination, but restored approximately two weeks later. Bennett fails to discuss
what, if any, physical injury he experienced from the sixteen-day change to his handcuffing status.
The Prison Litigation Reform Act states that "no federal civil action may be brought by a prisoner
confined in a jail, prison, or other correctional facility, for mental or emotional injury suffered while
in custody without a prior showing of physical injury." 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e). It is settled law that a
prior physical injury is required for a prisoner to recover damages for any emotional and mental
injury. See Siglar v. Hightower, 112 F.3d 191, 193-94 (5th Cir. 1997).
Further, Bennett does not discuss how Defendants Green and Moyer, the ECI Warden and the
Secretary for the Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services, are liable on a
personal or supervisory basis. In certain circumstances, supervisory officials may be held liable for
the constitutional injuries inflicted by their subordinates. See Shaw v. Stroud, 13 F.3d 791, 798 (4th
Cir. 1994) (citing Slakan v. Porter, 737 F.2d 368 (4th Cir. 1984)). This liability, however, is not
premised on respondeat superior, but rather upon “a recognition that supervisory indifference or tacit
authorization of subordinates' misconduct may be a causative factor in the constitutional injuries they
inflict on those committed to their care.” Id. at 798 (quoting Slakan, 737 F.2d at 372–73). “[L]iability
ultimately is determined ‘by pinpointing the persons in the decision-making chain whose deliberate
indifference permitted the constitutional abuses to continue unchecked.’ ” Id. at 798 (quoting Slakan,
737 F.2d at 376).2
This complaint shall be dismissed without prejudice. A separate Order follows.
Date: October 9, 2015.
James K. Bredar
United States District Judge
To establish supervisory liability against a warden or others under § 1983, Bennett
must show: “(1) that the supervisor had actual or constructive knowledge that his subordinate was engaged in
conduct that posed ‘a pervasive and unreasonable risk’ of constitutional injury to citizens like the plaintiff”;
(2) that the supervisor's response to that knowledge was so inadequate as to show ‘deliberate indifference to or
tacit authorization of the alleged offensive practices'; and (3) that there was an ‘affirmative causal link’
between the supervisor's inaction and the particular constitutional injury suffered by the plaintiff.” Shaw, 13
F.3d at 799.
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?