SaLazar v. Mental Health Board et al

Filing 16

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - This matter is dismissed without prejudice because the Amended Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. A separate judgment will be entered in accordance with this Memorandum and Order and the court's May 25, 2011, Memorandum and Order. All pending motions are denied as moot. Ordered by Judge Richard G. Kopf. (Copy mailed to pro se party) (AOA)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
AMBROSIO SALAZAR JR.,
Plaintiff,
v.
MENTAL HEALTH BOARD, Platt
County, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

4:11CV3048

MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER

This matter is before the court on its own motion. On May 25, 2011, the court
conducted an initial review of Plaintiff’s Complaint and found that Plaintiff failed to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted as to all claims asserted. (Filing No.
11.) In particular, the court determined that:
While Plaintiff has alleged facts sufficient to suggest that he is being
treated differently than similarly situated inmates, he has not alleged that
his different treatment was based on a suspect classification or that it
burdened one of his fundamental rights. As such, Plaintiff has failed to
properly allege an equal protection claim against Defendants and his
Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
(Id. at CM/ECF p. 3.) In light of these pleading deficiencies, the court granted
Plaintiff an opportunity to amend.
In response, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint on June 15, 2011. (Filing
No. 12.) In his Amended Complaint, Plaintiff generally repeats the allegations of his
original complaint. (Id.) However, Plaintiff again fails to allege that his treatment
was based on a suspect classification or that it burdened one of his fundamental rights.
(Id.) After careful review of the Amended Complaint, the court finds that, even after
amendment, Plaintiff has failed to state an Equal Protection claim upon which relief
may be granted. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1950 (2009) (“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.”); Martin v. Sargent, 780 F.2d 1334, 1337 (8th Cir. 1985) (holding that,
regardless of whether a plaintiff is represented or is appearing pro se, the plaintiff’s
complaint must allege specific facts sufficient to state a claim).
For the first time in his Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’
actions also violated his Eighth Amendment right to be free from “cruel and unusual
punishment.” (Filing No. 12 at CM/ECF p. 4.) Plaintiff’s allegations as to this claim
are sparse and consist of allegations that his physicians ordered that he be restrained
for an extensive period of time after his altercation with another patient. (Id. at
CM/ECF pp. 4-6.) “The Supreme Court has interpreted the Eighth Amendment’s
prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment to include a right to safe and
humane conditions of confinement.” Brown v. Fortner, 518 F.3d 552, 558 (8th Cir.
2008) (citing Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 847 (1994)). A prisoner asserting a
violation of his Eighth Amendment right must show “deliberate indifference”or
reckless or callous disregard of a known, excessive risk of serious harm to his health
or safety. Tucker v. Evans, 276 F.3d 999, 1001 (8th Cir. 2002). Moreover, a viable
Eighth Amendment claim consists of an objective component and a subjective
component. Jackson v. Everett, 140 F.3d 1149, 1151 (8th Cir. 1998). “To prevail on
an Eighth Amendment claim, an inmate must show both an objective element, that the
deprivation was sufficiently serious, and a subjective element, that the defendant acted
with a sufficiently culpable state of mind.” Coleman v. Rahija, 114 F.3d 778, 784 (8th
Cir. 1997). “The subjective component of deliberate indifference requires proof that
[a Defendant] actually knew of and recklessly disregarded a substantial risk of serious
harm.” Butler v. Fletcher, 465 F.3d 340, 345 (8th Cir. 2006) (citation omitted).
Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint does not allege that Defendants were
deliberately indifferent to a known or excessive risk of harm. Rather, Plaintiff alleges
that Defendants restrained him as part of his medical treatment and that this amounted
to “mistreatment.” There are no allegations that Plaintiff suffered any serious harm
as a result of his restraints. At best, Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint alleges a medical
2

malpractice claim, which is not actionable under the Eighth Amendment. See Estelle
v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976) (“Medical malpractice does not become a
constitutional violation merely because the victim is a prisoner.”); see also Phillips
v. Jasper County Jail, 437 F.3d 791, 795 (8th Cir. 2006) (“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 violation.”) (quotation
omitted); Davis v. Hall, 992 F.2d 151, 153 (8th Cir. 1993) (“Disagreement with a
medical judgment is not sufficient to state a claim for deliberate indifference to
medical needs.”) For these reasons, and the reasons set forth in the court’s May 25,
2011, Memorandum and Order, this matter is dismissed without prejudice.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:
1.

This matter is dismissed without prejudice because the Amended

Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
2.

A separate judgment will be entered in accordance with this

Memorandum and Order and the court’s May 25, 2011, Memorandum and Order.
3.

All pending motions are denied as moot.

DATED this 17 th day of August, 2011.
BY THE COURT:
Richard G. Kopf
United States District Judge
*This opinion may contain hyperlinks to other documents or Web sites. The
U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska does not endorse, recommend,
approve, or guarantee any third parties or the services or products they provide on
their Web sites. Likewise, the court has no agreements with any of these third parties
or their Web sites. The court accepts no responsibility for the availability or
functionality of any hyperlink. Thus, the fact that a hyperlink ceases to work or
directs the user to some other site does not affect the opinion of the court.
3

*This opinion may contain hyperlinks to other documents or Web sites. The
U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska does not endorse, recommend,
approve, or guarantee any third parties or the services or products they provide on
their Web sites. Likewise, the court has no agreements with any of these third parties
or their Web sites. The court accepts no responsibility for the availability or
functionality of any hyperlink. Thus, the fact that a hyperlink ceases to work or
directs the user to some other site does not affect the opinion of the court.
4