Simpson v. Corizon 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 $1.20 within twenty-one (21) 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. Signed by District Judge Ronnie L. White on July 24, 2017. (BRP)
UNITED ST A TES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
CORIZON, et al.,
No. 4:17-CV-1598 RLW
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 plaintiffs financial information, the Court assesses a partial
initial filing fee of $1.20, which is twenty percent of his average monthly deposit. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(b). Additionally, this action is dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).
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, 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.
When reviewing a complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), the Court accepts the well-pled
facts as true. Furthermore, the Court liberally construes the allegations.
Plaintiff brings this action against Corizon, Nurse Unknown Wooford, Lieutenant
Unknown Richards, and Correctional Officer Unknown Hayles. He says Wooford refused to
wear medical gloves when administering his seizure medication. She also refused to show him
the "script card." He says he was afraid to take the pills because she was not providing sanitary
conditions and because he did not trust that she was giving him the right pills, and therefore, he
refused to take the pills of four separate occasions. On each of those occasions he had seizures.
He told Richards about Wooford's actions, and Richards sent Hayles to investigate. Neither
Richards nor Hayles caused Wofford to change her practices.
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
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). In order to state a claim against Corizon,
plaintiff must allege that there was a policy, custom or official action that caused an actionable
injury. Sanders v. Sears Roebuck & Co., 984 F.2d 972, 95-76 (8th Cir. 1993).
Plaintiff has not alleged facts showing that Wooford was deliberately indifferent to his
epilepsy. Wooford offered him the medication, and he refused to take it. He does not allege that
she actually gave him the wrong medication on any occasion. Nor does he allege that he had
seizures after taking the pills she gave him. Even if regular medical hygiene practices include
wearing gloves while administering pills, Wooford's refusal to do so does not rise to the level of
deliberate indifference. It amounts to negligence, at best. As a result, plaintiffs allegations
against Woo ford do not state a plausible claim for relief under § 1983.
Plaintiffs claim against Corizon is frivolous because he has not alleged that Corizon's
policies or customs caused an actionable injury.
"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."); George v. Smith, 507 F.3d
605, 609 (7th Cir. 2007) ("Only persons who cause or participate in the [constitutional]
violations are responsible. Ruling against a prisoner on an administrative complaint does not
cause or contribute to the violation."). There are no allegations showing that Richards or Hayles
were directly responsible for a violation of plaintiffs rights. Therefore, the complaint must be
dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs 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 $1.20
within twenty-one (21) 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.
An Order of Dismissal will be filed separately.
thi~ of July, 2017.
RONNIE L. WHITE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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).
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?