Cook v. Medical Department FCI Elkton et al
Filing
5
Memorandum of Opinion and Order For the reasons set forth herein, Plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2 ) is granted, and this action is dismissed under section 1915(e). Furthermore, the motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 4 ) is denied. The dismissal is without prejudice to any valid state law claim Plaintiff may have under the facts alleged. The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith. Judge Benita Y. Pearson on 5/27/2014. (JLG)
PEARSON, J.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
EMANUAL COOK, aka Emanuel Cook,
Plaintiff,
v.
DR. DENNIS ORR, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO. 4:14cv42
JUDGE BENITA Y. PEARSON
MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND
ORDER [Regarding ECF Nos. 1; 2; 4]
On January 8, 2014, Plaintiff pro se Emanual Cook filed this in forma pauperis action
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Dr. Dennis Orr of the Trumbull County Northside Hospital
(“Northside”) and Supervisor Barnes of the Federal Correctional Institution at Elkton (“FCI
Elkton”) Medical Department. ECF No. 1. Plaintiff cites 28 U.S.C. § 1331, entitled “Federal
question,” as the sole basis for the Court’s jurisdiction. For the reasons stated below, this action
is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).
I. Background
Plaintiff, an inmate at the FCI Elkton, alleges that Dr. Orr performed surgery “for the
removal of a hernia,”at Northside. ECF No. 1-1 at 3. After the surgery, Plaintiff experienced
pain in the surgical area. Id. at 4. An FCI physician, Dr. Dunlop, then examined Plaintiff and
told him the hernia appeared to still be in place. Id. A week after that, Dr. Orr examined
Plaintiff and advised him the problem was only fluid and that the pain would go away. Id. No
CT scans or x-rays were ever done by Dr. Orr. Id. Plaintiff later discovered he had been
(4:14cv42)
misdiagnosed by Dr. Orr, and that the hernia surgery was unnecessary. Id. Because of Dr. Orr’s
mistakes in diagnosis and treatment, Plaintiff alleges, a subsequent surgery to remove Plaintiff’s
testicles had to be performed. Id. at 5. Plaintiff brings this section 1983 action and alleges that
Defendants “acted with Malpractice and Neglig[]ence of Medical Surgery and Treatment.” Id. at
3.
II. Standard of Review
Although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, Boag v. MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364,
365 (1982) (per curiam); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), the district court is
required to dismiss an action under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) if it fails to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted, or if it lacks an arguable basis in law or fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S.
319, 328 (1989); Lawler v. Marshall, 898 F.2d 1196, 1198 (6th Cir. 1990); Sistrunk v. City of
Strongsville, 99 F.3d 194, 197 (6th Cir. 1996).
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), a pleading must contain a “short and plain
statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
662, 677-78 (2009). The pleading standard Rule 8 announces does not require “detailed factual
allegations, but it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me
accusation.” Id. at 678 (internal quotation marks omitted). “A pleading that offers ‘labels and
conclusions’ or ‘a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.’” Id.
(quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). “Nor does a complaint
suffice if it tenders “naked assertion[s]” devoid of “further factual enhancement.” Id. (quoting
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). It must contain “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a
2
(4:14cv42)
claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). “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. “The
plausibility standard is not akin to a ‘probability requirement,’ but it asks for more than a sheer
possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556).
When a plaintiff pleads facts that are “merely consistent with a defendant’s liability, it stops short
of the line between possibility and plausibility of entitlement to relief.” Id. (quoting Twombly,
550 U.S. at 557) (internal quotation marks omitted).
III. Law and Discussion
Negligence cannot form the basis for a section 1983 action. Daniels v. Williams, 474
U.S. 327, 330-31 (1986). Moreover, to establish a constitutional claim for inadequate medical
care, Plaintiff would have to demonstrate that Defendants acted with deliberate indifference to
his serious medical needs. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 835 (1994). An official acts with
deliberate indifference when he acts with criminal recklessness, a state of mind that requires
conscious disregard of a substantial risk of serious harm. Id. at 837, 839. Mere negligence will
not suffice. Id. at 835-36.
Allegations of medical malpractice, negligent diagnosis, or negligent treatment do not
state a valid constitutional claim. Moreover, where a prisoner has received some medical
attention and the dispute is over the adequacy of the treatment, “federal courts are generally
reluctant to second guess medical judgments and to constitutionalize claims which sound in state
tort law.” Westlake v. Lucas, 537 F.2d 857, 860 n. 5. (6th Cir. 1976).
3
(4:14cv42)
Plaintiff alleges Defendants acted with negligence in committing malpractice. Moreover,
the facts alleged in the instant case, even liberally construed, do not indicate the sort of
“unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain” necessary to give rise to a colorable Eighth
Amendment claim. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 105 (1976). Thus, regardless of any valid
state law claim he may have, Plaintiff does not set forth allegations which might establish a valid
federal claim.
IV. Conclusion
Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is granted, and this
action is dismissed under section 1915(e). Furthermore, the motion for appointment of counsel
(ECF No. 4) is denied. The dismissal is without prejudice to any valid state law claim Plaintiff
may have under the facts alleged. The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an
appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
May 27, 2014
Date
/s/ Benita Y. Pearson
Benita Y. Pearson
United States District Judge
4
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?