Fields v. Wallace et al

Filing 6

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER..IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis [ECF No. 2] is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiff must pay an initial filing fee of $1.00 within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice. Signed by District Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr on 5/25/16. (MRS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION
ABRAHAM FIELDS,
Plaintiff,
v.
IAN WALLACE, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 1:16-CV-90 SNLJ

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Plaintiff, a prisoner, seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis in this civil action under 42
U.S.C. § 1983. Having reviewed plaintiff’s financial information, the Court assesses a partial
initial filing fee of $1.00. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b).
Standard of Review
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), the Court is required to dismiss a complaint filed in forma
pauperis if it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
To state a claim for relief under § 1983, a complaint must plead more than “legal conclusions”
and “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action [that are] supported by mere
conclusory statements.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).

A plaintiff must

demonstrate a plausible claim for relief, which is more than a “mere possibility of misconduct.”
Id. at 679. “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows
the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct
alleged.” Id. at 678. Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief [is] a
context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and
common sense. Id. at 679.

The Complaint
Plaintiff brings this action against Ian Wallace, Warden of the Southeast Correctional
Center (“SECC”); Correctional Officer Unknown Emerson; and Correctional Officer Anthony
Parker. Plaintiff is a diabetic and takes insulin. Plaintiff alleges that on November 15, 2015, the
bubble officer announced that he needed to leave his cell within one minute for morning medical
call. Plaintiff says he missed the one-minute window because he had to put his clothes on.
Plaintiff was stopped on his way to medical by defendants Emerson and Parker who told him to
return to his cell. Emerson told plaintiff he had also missed his morning meal. Plaintiff says he
was able to take his insulin at lunch. Plaintiff claims his blood glucose level was “thrown off”
for that day.
Discussion
“Liability under § 1983 requires a causal link to, and direct responsibility for, the alleged
deprivation of rights.” Madewell v. Roberts, 909 F.2d 1203, 1208 (8th Cir. 1990); see Ashcroft
v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 676 (2009) (“Because vicarious liability is inapplicable to Bivens and §
1983 suits, a plaintiff must plead that each Government-official defendant, through the official’s
own individual actions, has violated the Constitution.”); Camberos v. Branstad, 73 F.3d 174, 176
(8th Cir. 1995) (“a general responsibility for supervising the operations of a prison is insufficient
to establish the personal involvement required to support liability.”). The complaint does not
state that defendant Wallace was involved in the alleged violation of plaintiff’s rights. As a
result, the complaint is frivolous with regard to Wallace.
To state a claim for medical mistreatment, plaintiff must plead facts sufficient to indicate
a deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976);
Camberos v. Branstad, 73 F.3d 174, 175 (8th Cir. 1995). Allegations of mere negligence in

2

giving or failing to supply medical treatment will not suffice. Estelle, 429 U.S. at 106. In order
to show deliberate indifference, plaintiff must allege that he suffered objectively serious medical
needs and that defendants actually knew of but deliberately disregarded those needs. Dulany v.
Carnahan, 132 F.3d 1234, 1239 (8th Cir. 1997). Deliberate indifference is akin to criminal
recklessness, which demands more than negligent misconduct. Olson v. Bloomberg, 339 F.3d
730, 736 (8th Cir. 2003).
The allegations fail to state a plausible claim for deliberate indifference. Plaintiff does
not say that he displayed any symptoms of distress when defendants told him to lock down. And
plaintiff’s claim that his blood glucose was “ thrown off” for the day is vague and fails to show
he suffered any injury. The claims do not rise above negligence. Therefore, the complaint fails
to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis [ECF
No. 2] is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiff must pay an initial filing fee of $1.00
within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order. Plaintiff is instructed to make his remittance
payable to “Clerk, United States District Court,” and to include upon it: (1) his name; (2) his
prison registration number; (3) the case number; and (4) that the remittance is for an original
proceeding.1
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice.

1

Prisoners must pay the full amount of the $350 filing fee. 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. The agency having custody of the prisoner will deduct the payments and forward them to the
Court each time the amount in the account exceeds $10. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2).

3

An Order of Dismissal will be filed separately.
Dated this 25th day of May, 2016.

STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4