Hill v. Dodson et al

Filing 5

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER re: 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis under 42:1983 (prisoner) filed by Plaintiff Craig Hill motion is GRANTED. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis [Doc. #2] is GRAN TED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, as to plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment medical indifference claims against Dr. Douglas Fitzwater and Danny Dodson in their individual capacities, the Clerk shall issue process or cause process to be issued on the complaint. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(g)(2), defendants Dr. Douglas Fitzwater and Danny Dodson shall reply to plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment medical indifference claims within the time provided by the appli cable provisions of Rule 12(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, as to defendant County of Pemiscot, the Clerk shall not issue process or cause process to issue upon the complaint, because the complaint is legally f rivolous and fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to the Court's differentiated case management system, this case is assigned to Track 5B (standard prisoner actions). A separate Order of Partial Dismissal shall accompany this Memorandum and Order. Signed by District Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr on 8/16/12. (CSG)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION
CRAIG HILL,
Plaintiff,
v.
DANNY DODSON, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 1:12-CV-135-SNLJ

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon the motion of Craig Hill (registration no.
1065369) for leave to commence this action without payment of the required filing
fee. For the reasons stated below, the Court finds that plaintiff does not have
sufficient funds to pay the filing fee, and therefore, the motion will be granted. See
28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). Furthermore, based upon a review of the complaint, the
Court finds that process should issue on the complaint as to defendants Dr. Douglas
Fitzwater and Danny Dodson. As to defendant County of Pemiscot, this action will
be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1)
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1), a prisoner bringing a civil action in forma
pauperis is required to pay the full amount of the filing fee. If the prisoner has

insufficient funds in his prison account to pay the entire fee, the Court must assess
and, when funds exist, collect an initial partial filing fee of 20 percent of the greater
of (1) the average monthly deposits in the prisoner’s account, or (2) the average
monthly balance in the prisoner’s account for the prior six-month period. After
payment of the initial partial filing fee, the prisoner is required to make monthly
payments of 20 percent of the preceding month’s income credited to the prisoner’s
account. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). The agency having custody of the prisoner will
forward these monthly payments to the Clerk of Court each time the amount in the
prisoner’s account exceeds $10, until the filing fee is fully paid. Id.
Plaintiff has submitted an affidavit and a certified copy of his prison account
statement for the six-month period immediately preceding the submission of his
complaint. A review of plaintiff’s account indicates an average monthly deposit of
$00.00 and an average monthly balance of $00.00. Plaintiff has insufficient funds to
pay the filing fee, and the Court will not assess an initial partial filing fee at this time.
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the Court may dismiss a complaint filed
in forma pauperis if the action is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is
immune from such relief. An action is frivolous if “it lacks an arguable basis in either
-2-

law or in fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 328 (1989). An action fails to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted if it does not plead “enough facts to
state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,
550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007).
In reviewing a pro se complaint under § 1915(e)(2)(B), the Court must give the
complaint the benefit of a liberal construction. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520
(1972). The Court must also weigh all factual allegations in favor of the plaintiff,
unless the facts alleged are clearly baseless. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32
(1992).
The Complaint
Plaintiff, an inmate at the Pemiscot County Jail, seeks monetary and injunctive
relief in this action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Named as defendants are
Danny Dodson (Pemiscot County Justice Center Emergency Management Director),
the County of Pemiscot, and Douglas Fitzwater (Pemiscot County Medical Doctor).
Plaintiff alleges that defendants violated his Eighth Amendment constitutional rights

-3-

against cruel and unusual punishment.1 Plaintiff is suing the individual defendants
in their individual capacities.
A. Failure to Treat/Medical Indifference Claims against Defendants
Dr. Douglas Fitzwater and Danny Dodson
Liberally construing the complaint, plaintiff is alleging that defendant Dr.
Fitzwater has intentionally withheld necessary medical treatment with respect to (1)
plaintiff’s injured left arm; (2) an unidentified prescription medication that affects
plaintiff’s thinking; and (3) dangerously low lithium levels.
More specifically, plaintiff states that prior to his current incarceration, he “was
in the process of having surgery done on [his] left arm.” At some point after his
incarceration, plaintiff claims that he sustained serious physical injuries, particularly
to his left arm and elbow, after two inmates kicked him several times “in his face,
arm, and body.” He states that after the assault, his left arm “was damage[d] even
more.” Plaintiff states that he was taken to see Dr. Fitzwater on June 18, 2012, at
which time he told the doctor of his previous diagnosis and need of surgery and
informed him of the assault, the consequent damage to his arm, and the fact that he
1

It appears that plaintiff is a pretrial detainee, and thus, his claims should be
analyzed under the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause, rather than the
Eighth Amendment. See Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 535 n. 16 (1979). This Court
notes that the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has "repeatedly applied the deliberate
indifference standard of Estelle to pretrial detainee claims." Butler v. Fletcher, 465
F.3d 340, 344 (8th Cir. 2006).
-4-

was in “a lot of pain.” Nevertheless, according to plaintiff, Dr. Fitzwater failed to
order x-rays or to give plaintiff any medication, and thus, intentionally withheld
necessary medical treatment from him.
In addition, plaintiff alleges that he is suffering “from a lack of prescription
drug that affect[s] [his] thinking and ability to decide for [himself],” because Dr.
Fitzwater is “neglect[ing] his medical needs” in violation of his constitutional rights.
As a result of the lack of medical care, plaintiff states that he has been suffering from
“dangerous side effect[s]” including “blackouts, confusion, chest pains, stomach pain,
memory los[s], [and] hallucinations.”
Plaintiff further states that he takes lithium medication, which can be very
dangerous, and therefore, it is important to have regular blood tests to ensure the
dosage is within the effective range. Plaintiff believes his lithium levels are
dangerously low. He states that when he saw Dr. Fitzwater on June 18, 2012, he
asked that his lithium levels be checked. Dr. Fitzwater replied that he was unable to
do so because he did not have the proper equipment to draw blood. Three days later,
on June 21, “the County of Pemiscot [drew plaintiff’s] blood.” Plaintiff states that

-5-

the laboratory results showed his results were “really low,”2 and that Pemiscot County
and Dr. Fitzwater have “fail[ed] to do anything about it.”
As to defendant Danny Dodson, plaintiff claims that he advised Dodson of the
fact that he was going to have surgery on his left arm, and that the inmate assault
caused further damage requiring immediate medical treatment. Plaintiff claims that
Dodson intentionally withheld medical treatment, failed “to keep all appointments
with [the] doctor,” failed to pick up medications on time, and failed to give
medications as prescribed.2
Affording the complaint the benefit of a liberal construction and weighing all
factual allegations in favor of plaintiff, the Court finds that plaintiff has sufficiently
alleged that he had objectively serious medical needs and that Dr. Fitzwater and
Danny Dodson were made aware of these needs but deliberately disregarded them.
As such, plaintiff’s medical indifference allegations relative to the denial of medical
treatment state claims for relief under § 1983 and are sufficient to proceed against
defendants Fitzwater and Dodson, in their individual capacities. See Nelson v. Corr.
Med. Servs., 583 F.3d 522, 531-32 (8th Cir. 2009)(en banc); see also McCaster v.

2

According to plaintiff, the lithium reference range is 1.00 - 1.20, and his
results were 0.41.
2

It is unclear to the Court who actually prescribed these alleged prescriptions
for plaintiff, as he states that Dr. Fitzwater refused to give him any medication.
-6-

Clausen, No. 11-2612 (8th Cir. 2012)(medical personnel had constitutional obligation
to address adequately any serious medical need of which they had been aware). The
Court will order Dr. Fitzwater and Danny Dodson to reply to these claims within the
time provided by the applicable provisions of Rule 12(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.
B. Claims against County of Pemiscot
Plaintiff states that on July 17, 2012, he appeared in Pemiscot County Circuit
Court with his attorney, who informed Judge Fred Copeland of plaintiff’s low lithium
levels. Plaintiff states that the Judge ordered Pemiscot County Sheriff Tommy
Greenwell “to allow [plaintiff] to see the doctor”; however, as of the day plaintiff
filed the instant complaint,3 defendant Pemiscot County had failed to take him to a
doctor. Plaintiff claims that Pemiscot County was deliberately indifferent to his
necessary medical treatment and “fail[ed] to follow a court order.”
Plaintiff’s claims against County of Pemiscot will be dismissed as legally
frivolous. Although a municipality is not entitled to absolute immunity in § 1983
actions, it cannot be held liable under a respondeat superior theory. Monell v.
Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 691 (1978). Municipal liability cannot
be imposed absent an allegation that unlawful actions were taken pursuant to a
3

The complaint was signed on July 20, 2012.
-7-

municipality's policy or custom. Id. at 694. There being no such allegation in the
present action, the complaint is legally frivolous as to defendant County of Pemiscot.
Moreover, to the extent that plaintiff is now seeking enforcement of or compliance
with a Missouri state-court judgment, his remedies lie not in federal district court, but
rather, with the Missouri state courts. See Postma v. First Fed. Sav. & Loan, 74 F.3d
160, 162 (8th Cir. 1996) (federal district courts are courts of original jurisdiction; they
lack subject matter jurisdiction to engage in appellate review of state court decisions).
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma
pauperis [Doc. #2] is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, as to plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment
medical indifference claims against Dr. Douglas Fitzwater and Danny Dodson in their
individual capacities, the Clerk shall issue process or cause process to be issued on
the complaint.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(g)(2),
defendants Dr. Douglas Fitzwater and Danny Dodson shall reply to plaintiff’s
Fourteenth Amendment medical indifference claims within the time provided by the
applicable provisions of Rule 12(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

-8-

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, as to defendant County of Pemiscot, the
Clerk shall not issue process or cause process to issue upon the complaint, because
the complaint is legally frivolous and fails to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to the Court's differentiated case
management system, this case is assigned to Track 5B (standard prisoner actions).
A separate Order of Partial Dismissal shall accompany this Memorandum and
Order.
Dated this 16th Day of August, 2012.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-9-