Francis v. Western Corr. Inst. et al

Filing 28

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge George Jarrod Hazel on 8/14/2017. (c/m 8/15/2017 tds, Deputy Clerk)

FILED

U.S.r:ST'::cr ere::r

IN THE UNITED STATES ()JSTRICt;C~lllR(JI:.:= i-::,:;YLA::)
FOR TIlE ()JSTRICT OF MARYLAN()
SOl/tit

CHRISTOPHER

SCOTT FRANCIS,

)011 AUG
III P 5: 05

em DiI';liOl/

*
~y.._-

I'laintiff,

*

\'.

Case No.: G.JII-16-2li9li

*
WESTERN CORRECTIONAL
INSTITUTION, et ill.,

*
Defendants.

*
*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

MEMORAN()UM
Plaintiff Christopher
Correctional

Institution

seeking monetary

damages

Dismiss or Alternatively
No. 24. and Plaintitrs
hearing is necessary.

Presently

I.

tllr Summary

Judgmen\.

Motion to Reconsider

at the Western

relief Irom Defendants

~ 19X3.

WCI and Wcxford
Motion to

ECF No. 13. WCI's Motion to Dismiss.

Denial of Additional

Disc(l\'ery.

lOCI'

ECF No. 21. No

Motion to Reconsider

Denial of Additional

is denied.

BACKGROUND

dermatitis.

Pin ciles

*

S'!!e Local Rule 105.6 (D. Md. 2016). For rcasons that tollo\\'. Defendants'

In the Complain\.

I

inmate incarcerated

pending beli.lre the Court is Wexilm!'s

Motions to Dismiss arc granted. and Plaintilrs
Discovery

*

hrings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 lJ.S.c.

and other miscellaneous

Ilcalth Sources ("Wexti.ml").

'*

*

OPINION

Scott Francis. a selt:represented

("Wcn.

*

10

PlaintilTstates

and allergy conditions

documents

filed

011

that his preseriptionmedications

Ii.))'his arthritis.

expired. ECF No. I at 4.1 Francis complains

the Court"s electronic

filing system (CMIECF)

that although

refer to the page numbers

he

gcnt.:ratcd

liled inflmnal complaints and sought administrative
medication

in May of 20 16. his medications

remedies regarding the expiration of his

were not renewed. 1<1. Francis aCKnowledges that on
..2 was delivered to provide him"some"

.July 21.2016_ an m1hritis medication--Meloxicam

rclief.

but he was not provided his dermatitis cream or his allergy spray. Id at 5. Plaintiff claims he was
informed that the order Ill!' the medications

"was never put in:'

1tI.

PlaintifT Iiled the instant Complaint on August 17. 2016. ECF No. I. On November 28.
2016. DetCndant Wexllml Iiled a Motion to Dismiss. or Alternatively.
whieh remains unopposed
wcrs

unopposed

Il11" ummary .Judgment.
S

as of the signature date.-' ECF No. 13. Also pending is Defendalll

Motion to Dismiss.-l ECF No. 24. In addition. Francis has Iiled a Motion

Reconsider the Denial of his Request Il)r Additional

10

Discovery. ECF No. 21.

This Court previously denied Francis' Motion to Expand the Record. noting that Francis
had not shown the relevance of documents
declaration.

rebuttal oppositions

he seeks. nor his inability to cran. through aflidm'it or

which present "facts essential to justify [his] opposition"

hased

upon the record presented to the court. ECF No. 18; srr Fcd. R. Civ. P. 56(d). Id. In his iVlotion
to Reconsider.
indecipherable.

Francis contends that the record presented to the Court is incomplctc.
and inconclusive.

inaccurate.

ECF No. 21 at 2. He therell)re claims that he requires acccss to

his entirc medical record and siCK-cali histories. Id Wexllml opposes the rcconsiderationmotion.
ECF No. 23. The issues presented Il)r review by the Complaint and Defendant WCTs response
do not involve a substantive

or complicated

analysis of the lilCtS. Francis has failed to shO\v that

bv that s\'stcm.

:!~\tfcloxi~al11 used to treat arthritis. It reduces pain. swelling. and stiffness ofthc joints. Mcloxicam
is
nonsteroidal

<lnti-intl<lll1lllalory

drug (NSA

is

~11()\\'11

as a

I D) . .':";e(' http://www.wchl11d.colll.drugs1l/drug-911/melo..\.ic<llll-

oml/dclails .
• Francis was gnulled additional time to and including January 17.2017 to tile his opposition. ECF No. 18. lie has
not done so.

~ By

motion.

Francis requested

The Motion shall be granted

an extension

IlUIlC

pro

oftimc

to respond ..to and including.

tUIlC.

.,

February

13.2017.'" ECF

0.22.

he cannot crati a rcsponse to thc Wcxford and WClmotions
materials.

Accordingly.

the Motion to Reconsider

in thc absence of additional

Denial of Additional

Discovery

is denied.

II, STANDAIW OF I{EVIEW
Dclendants
Rule 12(b)(6):'

may "test the adequacy

of a complaint

by way of a motion to dismiss under

Prelich ,'. Med. Res .. Il1c.. 813 F, Supp. 2d 654. 660 (I). Md. 2(11) (citing

(;erlllal1 \'. Fox. 267 F, App'x 231. 233 (4th Cir. 2(08»), Motions to dismiss tiJr n,ilure to statc a
claim do "not resolve contcsts surrounding

the tacts. the merits ofa claim. or the applicability

Prelich, 813 F. Supp. 2d at 660 (citing E<!ll"lmls \'. Cil)' ojGo/dshol'll,

detCnses:'

of

178 F.3d 231.

243 (4th Cir. 1999). Thc court should not grant a motion to dismiss tiJr failure to statc a claim tiJr
rclief unlcss "it is clear that no relief could be granted under any set of t~lcts that could be proved
consistent

with thc allcgations:'

GE 111\',Primle

Placemel1/ Parll1ers II \'. Parker. 247 F.3d 543.

548 (4th Cir. 2(01) (citing II..!. Il1c. J'. Norllnreslel'1l
(1989)). To ovcrcome

Bell Tel. Co .. 492 U.S. 229. 249-50)

a Rulc 12( b)( 6) motion. a compiaint

plausible claim t(Jr relief

must allege cnough t~lcts to state a

Bell All. Corp. ". 7iromhl)'. 550 U.S. 544.570

(2007): Ashcl'II!i \'.

Iqhal, 556 U,S. 662. 678 (2009), A claim is plausible when .'thc plaintitTplcads
that allows the Court to draw the reasonable
misconduct

alleged:'

In evaluating
allegations

interence

that the detendant

is liable tiJr the

I'lhal, 556 U,S, at 678.
the sufticiency

in the complaint

of the Plaintiffs

as true and construes

favorable to the Plaintiff. See Alhrighl

claims. the Court accepts t~lctual

thc I~lctual allegations

contain more than "Iegal conclusions.
of furthcr lactual cnhancement."
(4th Cir. 2(09).

in the light most

\'. Oli,w. 510 U,S. 266. 268 (1994): I.alllhelh \'. 1M 0(

('olllm'r.' 11/1J({l'i<!s0I1Oy.. 407 r,3d 266. 268 (4th Cir. 2(05). Ilowcver.

250.255

t~lctlml content

elcments

the complaint

of a cause of action. and bare assertions

must
de\"(Jid

Nemel (,17£,\'l'IIlel, !.I<!\'. ('OI/.\'I11II£'ru{!ilirs.
com. I11C 591 F.3d
..

Fed. R. Civ. 1'. 8(a) further provides that "laJ pleading that states a
3

claim for relief must contain a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is
entitled to relief."' Although
the defendant

"no technical

fimns of pleading arc required. a complaint

filir notice of what the plaintiJrs

claim is and the ground upon which it rests ....

Ellgle \'. Vlliled Siaies. 736 F. Supp. 670. 671 (D. Md. 1989). afrd.

902 F.2d 28 (4th Cir. 1990)

(citing COllley \'. Gihsoll. 355 U.S. 41. 48 (1957)). Thc Court is not obligatcd
unsupported

legal allegations.

Rewlle

Cir. 1989) or legal conclusions

must 'gi,'e

\'. Charles C(Jlmly Commissiollen.

couched as lilctual allegations.

to accept

882 F.2d 870. 873 (4th

PaplI.\(1II \'. A//aill.

478 U.S. 265.

286 (1986).
III. DISCUSSION
42 U.S.c.
statute. ordinancc.
subjectcd.

regulation.

at la\\' ...

custom. or usage. of any state or territory. subjects. or causes to bc

secured by the Constitution
for redress."

42 U.S.c.

to the deprivation

based on ordinary
supervisory

superior

principles

indifferenec

~ 1983. It is well established

or

that the doctrine of respolldeal
355 F.3d 766. 782 (4th Cir.

\'. Marlill.

liability under ~ 1983). Liability of supervisory
of respondeat

superior.

or tacit authorization

tilctor in the constitutional

of any rights. privileges.

and laws. shall bc liable to the party injured in an action

docs not apply in ~ 1983 claims. See Lm'e-Lalle

2(04) (no rcspondeat

Malolle.

part that "cvery person who. under color of any

any citizen of thc Unitcd States ...

immunities

sllperior

~ 1983 states in pertinent

but rathcr is prcmised

ofsubordinatcs'

misconduct

injuries they inllict on thosc committed

268 F.3d 228. 235 (4th Cir. 2(01) (quoting Siakalll'.

ol'lieials "is not

on 'a recognition

that

may be a causative

to their carc .... 8aYllard \'.

Porler.

737 F.2d 368. 372 (4th Cir.

1984»).
Therefore.

municipalities.

other local government

bodies. and private corporations

undcr color of state la\\'. as here. may not be held liable in a Section
ofresp0l/(leaISllperior.

See AIiSlill\'.

acting

1983 action undcr a theory

ParalllO/lIl1 ['arks. IIII' .. 195 f.3d 715. 727 (4th Cir. 1999):

4

Davis v. We.-.:jimllleaIIIlSo/lrces.

/IIC.. No. 2:15.CV.09756.

2017 WL938319. at *4 (S.D. W.

Va. Mar. 9. 2017) (explaining that a private entity which contracts with the state to provide
medical services acts "under color of state law") (citing Wesl,'. A/killS. 487 U.S. 42 (1998)).
Rather. "a private corporation is liable under Section 1983 only when an official policy or
custom of the corporation causes the alleged deprivation of lederal rights." A/lslill. 195 F.3d at
728. Here. Francis has failed to allege lilcts showing an official policy or custom by Wexllml in
regard to the matters alleged in his Complaint. His eflllft to hold Wexllmlliable

based on its

supervisory role. without more. fails to state a e1aim upon which relief may be granted.
Further. Delendant WCI is not a "person" subject to suit under 42 U.S.c. ~ 1983. A
number of courts have held that inanimate objects such as buildings. facilities. and grounds do
not act under color of state law and are not subject to suit under ~ 1983. See SII/illl \'.
'\/olllgoll/el)'

CI)'. Corr. Fi.lcilil)'. No. CIV.A, PWG.)3.3177.

2014 WI. 4094963. at *3 (D. Md.

Aug. 18. 2(14) (holding that Montgomery County Correctional Facility "is an inanimate object
that cannot act under color of state law and there!llre is not a 'person' subject to suit undcr
Section 1983.") /'rem/,'.

Rello. 57 F.Supp.2d 307. 310 (E.D. Va. 1999) ("[Tille Piedmont

Regional Jail is not a 'person: and therefore not amenable to suit under 42 U.S.c. ~ 1983."):
8rooks \'. /'ell/hroke

Cily.!ai/.

722 F.Supp. 1294. )301 (E.D. N.C. 1989) ("Claims under ~ 1983

are directed at 'persons' and the jail is not a person amenable to suit."). Thus. the Section 1983
claim against WCI is also subject to dismissal.
In addition. even if Plainti IThad brought suit against the appropriate individual prison or
medical otllcials. the allegations in his Complaint arc insufficient to state a e1aim Il)r
constitutional violations. i\ defendant prison orticial "violates the Eighth Amendment by acting
with deliberate indiflerence to a prisoner's serious medical needs." Ralll/o//,11 v. Slale. 74 F.
Supp. 2d 537. 543-44 (D. Md. 1999) (citing Eslelle \'. (Jail/hie. 429 U.S. 97. 104 (1976)). To
5

statc a claim fell' this typc of violation,
a sufliciently

thc plaintilTilllllatc

must adcquatcly

serious medical need that required mcdical treatmcnt:

awarc of it. but actcd with dclibcratc

indiffcrcnce

by dcclining

1995)), "Deliberate
negligence

indiffercncc"

onthc

part ofthc

or lack of due care fell"the prisoner's

prison official actually

werc

to securc availablc medical

'knows of and disregards

prison oflicial requircs "more than ordinary

intercsts or safety: it instead requires thai a
an excessive

Opensha\l' \'. We.\iiml Med Dep'l. No. CV TDC-15-3521.

risk to inmate health or safety:"

2017 WL 658712, 'II *2 (D. Md. Feb.

(citing Farme!" \'. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994)),

In this casc. Plaintiff alleges that he expericnces
allegations.

arthritis, eczema, and allcrgies.

without further detail. do not risc to the levcl of suflicicntly

that rcquire immcdiate
TDC -15-3521.
violation

and (b) prison oflicials

(citing Brice r, Virginia Beach Correctional 01' .. 58 F,3d 101. 104 (4th Cir.

attention:'/d

16,2017)

plead "(a) that hc had

medical attention.

These

serious mediealnccds

See, e.g., OpellS/lllll' \'. We.tfiml Med /Jep'l. No. CV

2017 WL 658712. at *2 (D, Md. Fcb. 16, 2(17) (Iinding no Eighth Amendment

wherc plaintiff inmate allegcd that he was not bcing provided the right medication

his hepatitis

C. resulting

fill'

in physical pain): While \'. Cori::on, Inc.. No. CIV.A. DKC-14-879.

2014 WL 1831 120. at * I (D, Md. May 7, 2014) (finding plaintiff inmale failed to state a
constitutional
cancellcd,

claim where he alleged that his prescriptions

and that he had not received adequate

hand. and skin rashcs). Moreover.
medication

fill' lotion and muscle rub were

medical care lilr back pain. nel'\'e damage in his

Francis himselfacknowlcdges

that he was provided arthritis

that "docs provide some relief: but does not kill all pain:'

ECF No. I '115: see also

Wrig/u ,'. Collins. 766 F,2d 841. 849 (4th Cir. 1(85) ("A disagrccment
prison staff over proper treatment
exceptional

circumstances

docs not rise to thc Icvel of deliberate

arc alleged, '''). For these reasons, Plaintirt-s

6

between an inmate and
indi rtcrencc 'unless
Complaint

fails to allege

sufiicient facts showing Defendants' deliberate indifference to a sufiiciently serious medical
need. which would entitle Plaintiff to reliefin this Court.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons. Defendants' Motions to Dismiss shall he granted. Defendant
Wextord's Motion tor Summary Judgment shall be dismissed without prejudice.; A separate
Order shall issue.

Date: August (~.

Aff-

2017

GEORGE J. HAZEL
United States District Judge

'Counsel is cautioned that any future filing of a Rule 56(a) motion that relies on the medical record should be
accompanied by Affidavit and a more comprehensive filing of exhibits.

7