Edwards v. Lee et al
Filing
8
MEMORANDUM OPINION re 7 Judgment. Signed by Michael P. Mills on 7/17/13. (cr)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
GREENVILLE DIVISION
ANTHONY J. EDWARDS
PLAINTIFF
v.
No. 4:13CV112-M-S
EARNEST LEE, ET AL.
DEFENDANTS
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter comes before the court on the pro se prisoner complaint of Anthony J.
Edwards, who challenges the conditions of his confinement under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. For the
purposes of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, the court notes that the plaintiff was incarcerated
when he filed this suit. For the reasons set forth below, the instant case shall be dismissed for
failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
Factual Allegations
Edwards alleges that he is a certified mental patient in need of psychiatric case – and that
he is his having thoughts of killing other inmates, guards, and himself. He is currently receiving
psychiatric care at the Mississippi State Penitentiary. He would like to be transferred to the
Central Mississippi Correctional Facility or the East Mississippi Correctional Facility where he
believes that he will receive additional care to manage his psychiatric problems.
Classification
Inmates have neither a protectable property or liberty interest to any particular housing
assignment or custodial classification, either under the United States Constitution or under
Mississippi law. Hewitt v. Helms, 459 U.S. 460, 468 (1983); Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215,
224 (1976); Neals v. Norwood, 59 F.3d 530, 533 (5th Cir. 1995); Wilson v. Budney, 976 F.2d 957,
958 (5th Cir. 1992); McCord v. Maggio, 910 F.2d 1248, 1250 (5th Cir. 1990) (citations omitted);
Miss. Code Ann. §§ 47-5-99 to -103 (1993). Prisoner classification is a matter squarely within
the “broad discretion” of prison officials, “free from judicial intervention” except in extreme
circumstances. McCord, 910 F.2d at 1250 (citations omitted). As Edwards is currently
receiving psychiatric care, he has not alleged exceptional circumstances warranting judicial
intervention.
Denial of Medical Treatment
In order to prevail on an Eighth Amendment claim for denial of medical care, a plaintiff
must allege facts which demonstrate “deliberate indifference to the serious medical needs of
prisoners [which] constitutes ‘unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain’ proscribed by the
Eighth Amendment . . . whether the indifference is manifested by prison doctors or prison guards
in intentionally denying or delaying access to medical care . . . .” Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S.
97, 104-105, 50 L. Ed. 2d 251, 260 (1976); Mayweather v. Foti, 958 F.2d 91, 91 (5th Cir. 1992).
The test for establishing deliberate indifference is one of “subjective recklessness as used in the
criminal law.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994). Under this standard, a state actor
may not be held liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless plaintiff alleges facts which, if true, would
establish that the official “knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or safety;
the official must both be aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a
substantial risk of serious harm exists, and he must also draw the inference.” Id. at 838. Only in
exceptional circumstances may knowledge of substantial risk of serious harm be inferred by a
court from the obviousness of the substantial risk. Id. Negligent conduct by prison officials
does not rise to the level of a constitutional violation. Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 106
S.Ct. 662 (1986), Davidson v. Cannon, 474 U.S. 344, 106 S.Ct. 668 (1986). A prisoner’s mere
disagreement with medical treatment provided by prison officials does not state a claim against
the prison for violation of the Eighth Amendment by deliberate indifference to his serious
medical needs. Gibbs v. Grimmette, 254 F.3d 545 (5th Cir.2001), Norton v. Dimazana, 122 F.3d
286, 292 (5th Cir. 1997). In this case, Edwards is receiving psychiatric care. Though he believes
he requires additional care available at another facility, his disagreement with the nature of the
care provided does not rise to the level of a constitutional claim and must be dismissed.
In sum, the instant case should be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief
could be granted. A final judgment consistent with this memorandum opinion will issue today.
SO ORDERED, this the 17th day of July, 2013.
/s/ MICHAEL P. MILLS
CHIEF JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
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?