Horton v. Unknown
OPINION. Signed by Judge James P. Jones on 11/20/2017. (tvt)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
ROGER LEE HORTON,
WARDEN HENRY PONTON, ET AL.,
Case No. 1:17CV00042
By: James P. Jones
United States District Judge
Roger Lee Horton, Pro Se Plaintiff.
The plaintiff, Roger Lee Horton, filed this pro se Amended Complaint under
42 U.S.C. § 1983, asserting that his constitutional rights were violated while he
was incarcerated. 1
I conclude that the case as amended must be summarily
dismissed as frivolous.
Liberally construed, Horton’s current submissions allege that while he was
incarcerated at Nottoway Correctional Center (“NCC”) between December 27,
2013, and April 1, 2014, Dr. Amenra-Tuason prescribed unspecified “strong
mental health drug’s [sic] and overdosed” him. Horton states that his “body would
Horton is no longer incarcerated. In an initial pro se Complaint, he did not name
any defendant or allege sufficient facts to state a claim upon which relief could be
granted. By Opinion and Order entered in October 2017, I granted his application to
proceed in forma pauperis, but dismissed his Complaint without prejudice under 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). I also granted him an opportunity to file an Amended
Complaint, and he has done so.
not take this medication” and it “damaged” him in unspecified ways. See Am.
Compl. 1-3, ECF No. 4; Attach. 9, ECF No. 4-1 (listing medications prescribed to
Horton by various prison doctors in 2014-2016). Horton also asserts that other
medications the doctor prescribed “did not help matters.” Am. Compl. 2, ECF No.
4. Horton attaches medical records from 2017 about his recent health issues,2
which he blames on Dr. Amenra-Tuason’s course of treatment for him at NCC
more than three years ago.
On April 1, 2014, Horton was transferred to Bland Correctional Center
(“BCC”). He alleges that the transfer occurred “for no reason, and still no one [at
BCC] would ofte[r] to help [him with] any kind of treatment and [he] was
suffering.” Id. Horton’s attachments indicate, however, that at BCC other doctors
supervised his care and prescribed medications for him.
While there, Horton filed numerous requests for free photocopies of his
medical and mental health records. These requests were denied because Horton
was indigent. Officials advised him, however, that under Virginia law, he could
obtain a copy of his medical records at no cost within thirty days of his release
Horton says that after examinations in June and September 2017 after his
release, doctors prescribed medication for his lungs and liver, and for swelling and pain
in his lower legs and feet. Am. Compl. 3, ECF No. 4. He states that he is also having
problems with his blood pressure, bladder, kidneys, and stomach, and will soon undergo
surgery to remove his prostate. Id.
date. See Am. Compl. Attach. 39, ECF No. 4-1. Horton complains that the
photocopied records provided to him prior to his release were not complete.
Horton identifies only two defendants in the heading of the Amended
Complaint — former warden of NCC, Henry Ponton, and “Nottoway Correctional
Facilities.” Am. Compl. 1, ECF No. 4. Horton identifies three claims: (1) Dr.
Amenra-Tuason overdosed him at NCC on February 21, 2014; (2) BCC officials
did not provide timely, free copies of all medical records; and (3) the overdose in
2014 continues to cause him health problems. He does not state what relief he
The court must dismiss any civil action upon determining that the case is
“frivolous or malicious” or “fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and (ii). Because Congress did not set time
limits for filing a § 1983 action, such cases are uniformly governed by the statute
of limitations applicable to general personal injury actions in the state where the
tort allegedly occurred. See Owens v. Okure, 488 U.S. 235, 239, 250 (1989). Such
actions in Virginia must be commenced within two years from the date on which
the claim accrues. See Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-243(A). A § 1983 claim accrues
“when the plaintiff possesses sufficient facts about the harm done to him that
reasonable inquiry will reveal his cause of action.” Nasim v. Warden, Md. House
of Corr., 64 F.3d 951, 955 (4th Cir. 1995) (en banc). When the court finds it clear
from the face of the complaint that the plaintiff’s claims are time barred, the court
may summarily dismiss the action as frivolous under § 1915(e)(2)(B).
(applying earlier version of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d)).
I find it clear from Horton’s submissions that he waited too long to file his
§ 1983 claims about the alleged medication overdose at NCC. He does not allege
that Dr. Amenra-Tuason had any involvement with his medical care after his
transfer to BCC on April 1, 2014, or that the NCC warden had any personal
involvement in the doctor’s treatment decisions. Horton also does not allege that
the NCC Warden was personally involved in any of the alleged events at BCC.
Horton filed this civil action on September 4, 2017, at the earliest. 3 Because he
thus waited more than two years after the alleged overdose to file his claims about
it, I must summarily dismiss these claims under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) as frivolous.4
An inmate’s § 1983 action is commenced for purposes of the statute of
limitations when he delivers his complaint to prison authorities for mailing. Lewis v.
Richmond City Police Dep’t, 947 F.2d 733, 735-36 (4th Cir. 1991). For purposes of this
Opinion, I will assume that Horton delivered his initial Complaint to prison authorities
for mailing on the same day when he signed and dated it.
Horton’s claims against the named defendants also fail to state any actionable
claim. NCC is not a person subject to being sued under this statute. See Will v. Mich.
Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 70-71 (1989). The warden could reasonably rely on
the doctor’s medical expertise as to the appropriate course of medical and mental health
care for Horton at NCC. See Miltier v. Beorn, 896 F.2d 848, 851 (4th Cir. 1990),
overruled on other grounds by Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 840 (1994). Moreover,
Horton fails to present sufficient factual matter to state a constitutional claim regarding
his medication at NCC. Only a prison official’s deliberate indifference to an inmate’s
Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, an aggrieved party may file a civil action against a
state official for violations of his federal constitutional rights. See Cooper v.
Sheehan, 735 F.3d 153, 158 (4th Cir. 2013). Because Horton’s claim about events
at BCC does not implicate any constitutionally protected right, I find no
justification for allowing him to file a Second Amended Complaint to identify
other individuals as defendants.
For the stated reasons, I will summarily dismiss the case with prejudice
under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) as frivolous.
A separate Order will be entered herewith.
DATED: November 20, 2017
/s/ James P. Jones
United States District Judge
serious medical needs violates the Eighth Amendment. See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S.
97, 102 (1976). Horton does not state what medications allegedly harmed him, the
symptoms he experienced, why he believes he was overdosed, or why he believes
receiving an overdose of mental health medication in 2014 caused any of the physical
problems about which he now complains.
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?