Hudson v. Hollaway

Filing 7

ORDER that the Clerk is directed to mail Plaintiff a summons form for Plaintiff to fill out and return for service of process on Defendant.. Signed by Chief Judge Frank D. Whitney on 9/29/17. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.)(clc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
3:17-cv-357-FDW
SAMUEL HUDSON,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
FNU HOLLAWAY,
)
Nurse, Anson County Jail,
)
)
Defendant.
)
___________________________________ )

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court on initial review of Plaintiff’s Complaint pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) and § 1915A. (Doc. No. 1). On July 19, 2017, the Court entered an order
waiving the initial filing fee and directing monthly payments to be made from Plaintiff’s prison
account. (Doc. No. 6). Thus, Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis.
I.

BACKGROUND

Pro se Plaintiff Samuel Hudson is an inmate of the State of North Carolina, currently
incarcerated at Columbus Correctional Institution in Brunswick, North Carolina. Plaintiff filed
this action on June 27, 2017, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, purporting to bring a claim against
Defendant FNU Hollaway, a nurse at the Anson County Detention Center at all relevant times,
for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment,
based on Defendant’s alleged deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s dental issues while he was
incarcerated as a pre-trial detainee at the Anson County Detention Center.1

Because Plaintiff was a pre-trial detainee at all relevant times, his deliberate indifference claim
is properly brought under the Fourteenth Amendment, rather than the Eighth Amendment, but
the analysis is the same. See City of Revere v. Mass. Gen. Hosp., 463 U.S. 239 (1983); but see
1
1

II.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

Because Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, the Court must review the Complaint
to determine whether it is subject to dismissal on the grounds that it is “frivolous or malicious
[or] fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Furthermore,
§ 1915A requires an initial review of a “complaint in a civil action in which a prisoner seeks
redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity,” and the
court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint,
if the complaint is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted; or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. In its
frivolity review, this Court must determine whether the Complaint raises an indisputably
meritless legal theory or is founded upon clearly baseless factual contentions, such as fantastic or
delusional scenarios. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327-28 (1989).
III.

DISCUSSION

Claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based on an alleged lack of or inappropriate medical
treatment fall within the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.
Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976). To state a claim under the Eighth Amendment, a
plaintiff must show a “deliberate indifference to serious medical needs” of the inmate. Id.
“Deliberate indifference requires a showing that the defendants actually knew of and disregarded
a substantial risk of serious injury to the detainee or that they actually knew of and ignored a
detainee’s serious need for medical care.” Young v. City of Mt. Ranier, 238 F.3d 567, 575-76

Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 135 S. Ct. 2466, 2473, 2475 (2015) (holding that the test for excessive
force claims brought by pretrial detainees under the Fourteenth Amendment differs from the test
for excessive force claims brought by convicted prisoners under the Eighth Amendment).
2

(4th Cir. 2001) (citations omitted). “To establish that a health care provider’s actions constitute
deliberate indifference to a serious medical need, the treatment must be so grossly incompetent,
inadequate, or excessive as to shock the conscience or to be intolerable to fundamental fairness.”
Miltier v. Beorn, 896 F.2d 848, 851 (4th Cir. 1990).
Allegations that might be sufficient to support negligence and medical malpractice claims
do not, without more, rise to the level of a cognizable § 1983 claim. Estelle, 429 U.S. at 106;
Grayson v. Peed, 195 F.3d 692, 695 (4th Cir. 1999) (“Deliberate indifference is a very high
standard—a showing of mere negligence will not meet it.”). To be found liable under the Eighth
Amendment, a prison official must know of and consciously or intentionally disregard “an
excessive risk to inmate health or safety.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994);
Johnson v. Quinones, 145 F.3d 164, 167 (4th Cir. 1998). “[E]ven if a prison doctor is mistaken
or negligent in his diagnosis or treatment, no constitutional issue is raised absent evidence of
abuse, intentional mistreatment, or denial of medical attention.” Stokes v. Hurdle, 393 F. Supp.
757, 762 (D. Md. 1975), aff’d, 535 F.2d 1250 (4th Cir. 1976). The constitutional right is to
medical care. No right exists to the type or scope of care desired by the individual prisoner. Id.
at 763. Therefore, a disagreement “between an inmate and a physician over the inmate’s proper
medical care [does] not state a § 1983 claim unless exceptional circumstances are alleged.”
Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 849 (4th Cir. 1985) (dismissing the plaintiff’s § 1983 claim
against a defendant physician for allegedly discharging the plaintiff too early from a medical
clinic, as such claim did not rise to the level of deliberate indifference but would, “at most,
constitute a claim of medical malpractice”).
The Court finds that, assuming that Plaintiff’s allegations are true, and drawing all
reasonable inferences in his favor, Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant for deliberate indifference
3

to serious medical needs is not clearly frivolous. Thus, this action survives initial review.
IV.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated herein, the Court finds that Plaintiff has alleged a claim for
deliberate indifference to serious needs sufficient to survive this Court’s initial review as to
Defendant Hollaway.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that:
1.

Plaintiff’s Complaint survives initial review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).

2.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT the Clerk is directed to mail Plaintiff a
summons form for Plaintiff to fill out and return for service of process on
Defendant. Once the Court receives the summons form, the Clerk shall then direct
the U.S. Marshal to effectuate service on Defendant. The Clerk is respectfully
instructed to note on the docket when the form has been mailed to Plaintiff.

Signed: September 29, 2017

4