Traver v. Doe et al
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 $2.50 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.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice.An Order of Dismissal will be filed separately.. Signed by District Judge John A. Ross on 1/8/16. (KKS)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
JAMES MATTHEW TRAVER,
DR. JOHN DOE, et al.,
No. 2:15CV91 DDN
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 $2.50, which is twenty percent of his average monthly deposit. See 28 U.S.C.
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.
For the purpose of this Order, the Court accepts the following facts as true. Plaintiff was
booked into the Randolph County Jail on March 7, 2013. He told the booking officer that he was
allergic to Sulpha drugs. On the following day, his ear began to bleed, and he saw defendants
Jane Does 1 and 2, both of whom are nurses, for the condition. One of the nurses telephoned the
defendant Dr. John Doe, who prescribed an Sulpha-based antibiotic. Defendant Earl Endsley, a
correctional officer, delivered a pill to plaintiff at the direction of one of the nurses. Plaintiff
asked Endsley what it was, and Endsley replied, “I don’t know.” He took the pill, and as a result,
he had a severe allergic reaction.
“To prevail on an Eighth Amendment claim of deliberate indifference to serious medical
needs, an inmate must prove that he suffered from one or more objectively serious medical
needs, and that prison officials actually knew of but deliberately disregarded those needs.”
Roberson v. Bradshaw, 198 F.3d 645, 647 (8th Cir. 1999).
For a claim of deliberate
indifference, “the prisoner must show more than negligence, more even than gross negligence,
and mere disagreement with treatment decisions does not rise to the level of a constitutional
Estate of Rosenberg v. Crandell, 56 F.3d 35, 37 (8th Cir. 1995).
indifference is akin to criminal recklessness, which demands more than negligent misconduct.
Olson v. Bloomberg, 339 F.3d 730, 736 (8th Cir. 2003).
The alleged facts do not show that defendants were deliberately indifferent to plaintiff’s
serious medical needs. Plaintiff alleges that he told the booking officer about his allergy, but he
does not allege that the nurse had that information. And the alleged facts show that defendant
Endsley did not know what the drug was. So the complaint does not adequately allege the
subjective component of an Eighth Amendment violation. As a result, the complaint fails to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
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 $2.50
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
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice.
An Order of Dismissal will be filed separately.
Dated this 8th day of January, 2016.
JOHN A. ROSS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?