MEADOWS v. BROWN

Filing 3

ORDER AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE signed by MAG/JUDGE JOE L. WEBSTER on 06/06/2014, that in forma pauperis status be granted for the sole purpose of entering this Order and Recommendation.FURTHER that Plaint iff's trust officer shall be directed to pay to the Clerk of this Court 20 % of all deposits to his account starting with the month of July, 2014, and thereafter each time that the amount in the account exceeds $10.00 until the $ ;400.00 filing fee has been paid. If an inmate has been ordered to make Prison Litigation Reform Act payments in more than one action or appeal in the federal courts, the total amount collected for all cases cannot exceed 20 percent of the inmate 's preceding monthly income or trust account balance, as calculated under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2).RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A for failing to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. (Taylor, Abby)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
F'OR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH C,\ROLINA

ATAN LYDELL ME,ADOWS,

)

)
)

Plaintiff,

)

V

1,:1,4CY436

)

)

SHIRLEY BRO\X¡NI,

)
)
)

Defendant(s).

ORDE,R AND RECOMME,ND,\TION

Plaintiff, Alan Lydell Meadows, submitted a pto

se

complaint under 42 U.S.C.

$ 1983

and

requests petmission to ptoceed inþrmaþauperispursuantto23 U.S.C. $ 1915(a). Plaintiff names
Shidey Btown, a nurse at the prison where he is housed, as the only Defendant in this case. He
alleges that Defendant failed to weigh him

ot check his vital signs on Match 31,2014,when he

began a hunger strike. On April 1,,201.4, she did ask him cettain medical questions, but did not
check his vital signs and weight even after he told het that he had not eaten ot taken his seizute

or blood pressure medication in fìve days. Plaintiff seeks $1020.00 in damages based on these

allegations. Plaintiff raised these

ot similat allegations in an eatliet Complaint, which was

dismissed without prejudice. The Coutt noted then that his allegations did not appear to state
any claim for relief, but Plaintiff petsists in taising them.
Because

Plaintiff is "a prisoner seekfing] redtess from

a

governmental entity or officer

ot employee of agovernmental entity," this Coutt has an obligation to "review" this complaint.

28 U.S.C. $ 1915r\(a). "On review, the court

of the complaint, if [it]

-

(1) is

shall

. . . dismiss the complaint,

ot any pottion

ftivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may

be granted; or Q) seeks monetary

telief from

a defendant

who is immune from such rehef ." 28

u.s.c. s 1915,\(b).
Petinent to this
28 U.S.C.
as

S

càse,

^plainttff

"fails to state a claimupon which relief may be gtanted,"

1915,4.(b)(1), when the complaint does not "contain sufficientþctual matter,

^ccepted

true, to 'state a clatrn to rel-ief that is plausible on its face."' '\shcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662,

678 Q009) (emphasis added) (internal citations omitted) (quoting Bell

Atl. Cotp. v. Twombl)¡,

550 U.S. 544,570 (2007)). "'Where a complaint pleads facts that are 'metely consistent with' a
defendant's liability, it'stops shot of the line between possibility and plausibility of "entitlement

to relief.""' Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557). This standatd "demands more than an
unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me

accusation." L4. In othet wotds, "the tenet

thàt a court must accept as true all of the allegations contained in a complaint is inapplicable to
legal conclusions. Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mete

conclusory statements, do not suffìce." Id.1 The Cout may also anticipate afftmative defenses

that cleady

^ppe

r on the

face

of the complaint. Nasim v. Watden. Md. House of Cott.,

64

F.3d 951, 955 (4th Cir. 1995) (en banc); Todd v. Baskerville,71,2F.2d70,74 (4th Cir. 1983).

rr\lthough the Supreme Court has reiterated that "[a] document ftled pro r¿ is to be liberally constmed and a
þro se
complaint, however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyets,"
Erickson v. P¿rdus,551 U.S. 89,94 (2007) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted), the United States Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has "not read Erickson to undermine Twombly's requirement that a pleading contain mote
than labels and conclusions," fu¡ryJ-9hnq
,521F ,3à298, 304 n.5 (4th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks omitted)
(applyrrg Twombly standard in dismissing pro se complaint); accotd Àtherton v. Disttict of Columbia Off. of Ma)¡or, 567
F .3d 672, 687-82 p.C. Cir. 2009) ("À pro ra complaint . . . 'must be held to less stringent standards than fotmal pleadings
drafted by lawyers.' But even a þro te complainant must plead 'factual mattet' that permits the coutt to infer 'more than the
mere possibility of misconduct."' (quoting Erickson, 551 U.S, at 94, ard Iqbal, 556 U.S. at ó97, respectively)).

-2-

For the reasons that follow, the Complaint should be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
1915A.(b) because

S

it fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted.

As stated above, Plaintiff claims that Defendant failed to weigh him on the first day she
was notified that he was on a hunger strike and only asked him medical questions, rather thân

checking his vital signs, after discovering that he had not eaten or taken his seizure and blood
pressure medication in five days. .An initial problem fot Plaintiff is that

"[n]o Fedetal civil action

may be brought by a prisoner confined in a jul, prison, or other cortectional facihty, for mental

or emotional injury suffered while in custody without

^

prior showing of physical inþry." 42

U.S.C. $ 1997e(e). Plaintiff does not allege that he suffeted any physical injury, only that
Defendant did not follow procedures ot provide what Plaintiff feels was an appropriate medical
evaluation. Any injury would be mental ot emotional in natute. Therefote, Plaintifls claim fot
compensatory d^mages, the only relief he tequests, is barred.

Futthet, the facts alleged by Plaintiff ate not sufficient to state a claim

in any event.

Plaintiff alleges insuffìcient medical treatrnent. To state a claim based on imptopet medical
teatment under

S 1983, a

plaintiff must allege that the defendants wete delibetately indiffetent

to a serious medical need. Iko v. Shteve, 535 F.3d 225,241, (4th Cir.2008). "Delibetate
indifference is a very high standv¡f,,-a showing of mere negligence will not meet

it."

Gra)¡son

v. Peed, 195 F.3d 692,695 (4th Cir.1999). Here, Plaintiff does not allege facts demonsttating
a setious

medical need. He alleges that, by his own choice, he did not eat ot teceive his seizure

and blood pÍessure medication

for five days. However, he does not claim that this caused him

any sort of serious injury, illness, or

ill effects which needed medical treâtment or attention at

-3-

the time Defendant evaluated

him.

PlaintifPs real contention

is that he

disagreed with

Defendant's assessment of the level of medical evaluation needed when she spoke to him.2
Howevet, Plaintifls disagteement with the course of treatment does not supporta claimundet
S

1983. Jackson v. Sampson,536 F. App'*. 356, at x1 (4th Cit. July 30,201,3) (unpublished),

citing Russell v. Sheffer , 528 F.2d 31,8, 31,9 (4th Cir.1975); United States v. Clawson, 650 F.3d
530, 538 (4th Cir. 201,1). -{lso, a hunger strike, even with the expected negative symptoms
associated with not eating

fot

several days, is not sufficient

to show a serious medical

need.

Green v. Phillios. No. 04 Civ.'l0202lTPG). 2006WL846272. ât x5 íS.D.N.Y. Mar.. 31.2006\

(unpublished) (dismissing

a

claim that prison nurses failed to weigh

a

ptisoner who had not eaten

in seventy-two hours due to a hunger strike and was suffering "'headaches, sweating, confusion,
disotientation, weakness, hypotension and tremors"'). Because Plaintiff cannot state aclaimfot

telief, this action should be dismissed.
As

a

result, Plaintiffs request to proceed inþrrna þaøþ¿zi should not be countenanced,

with the exception that in þrma paaperh stâtus shall be granted for the sole putpose of entering
this Ordet and Recommendation.

Plaintiff has submitted the Complaint for filing and, notwithstanding the pteceding
determination, $ L915þX1) requires that he make aninittalpayment. Howevet, it appears that

Plaintiff has no funds with which to make any initial payment. Therefore, no initial payment will

2

It is not clear, but Plaintiff may also be allegrng that Defendant's actions violated a prison policy or procedure for
evaluating prisoners engaging in a hunger strike. If so, the mere violation of a prison policy does not equate to a violation
of the United States Constitution. This is particularþ true where, as hete, a plaintiff alleges no serious medical need and no

actualinjuryofanysort. Collinsv.Bud,No.2-11-cv-40-DPM-8D,2013WL6195748,at*4(E.D.Àrk.Nov.26,2013)
(unpublished).

-4-

be otdeted, but payments will be deducted from Plaintiffs prison trust account

if Plaintiff

obtains sufficient funds.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that in þrwa paaperìr sta:r)s be granted fot the

sole

pu{pose of enteting this Order and Recommendation.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that PlaintifPs trust officer shall be directed to pay to the
Clerk of this Coutt 20o/o of alldeposits to his account starting wrth the month ofJuly, 2014, and
thereafter each time that the amount in the accourit exceeds $10.00 until the $400.00 filing fee
has been paid.

If an inmate

has been ordeted to make Ptison Litigation Refotm

Act payments in more

than one action ot appeal in the fedetal courts, the total amount collected for all cases cannot
exceed 20 petcent

of the inmate's pteceding monthly income or trust account balance, as

calculated undet 28 U.S.C. S 1915(bX2).

IT IS RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed pursuantto 28 U.S.C. S 1915Â
for failing to state a clum upon which relief may be granted.
This, the 6th day ofJune,

201,4.

tr*W&scr
Stsæ n Ïtlngi,rtrate

-5-

J*dgs