Hawks v. New River Valley Regional Jail (Medical)
Filing
7
OPINION. Signed by Judge James P. Jones on 10/19/2016. (tvt)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
ROANOKE DIVISION
BOBBY LEE HAWKS,
Plaintiff,
v.
NEW RIVER VALLEY REGIONAL
JAIL (MEDICAL),
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 7:16CV00475
OPINION
By: James P. Jones
United States District Judge
Bobby Lee Hawks, Pro Se Plaintiff.
Plaintiff Bobby Lee Hawks, a Virginia inmate proceeding pro se, filed this
civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that medical officials at the
New River Valley Regional Jail (“the jail”) denied him treatment for a swollen eye
for sixteen days. Upon review of the record, I find that this lawsuit must be
summarily dismissed.
The court is required to dismiss any action or claim filed by a prisoner
against a governmental entity or officer if the court determines the action or claim
is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted. 28
U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). A “frivolous” claim is one that “lacks an arguable basis
either in law or in fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325, 327 (1989)
(interpreting “frivolous” in former version of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d)).
Section 1983 permits an aggrieved party to file a civil action against a
person for actions taken under color of state law that violated his constitutional
rights. See Cooper v. Sheehan, 735 F.3d 153, 158 (4th Cir. 2013). The only entity
that Hawks names as a defendant to his § 1983 claims is the jail medical staff, as a
group. A group of officials is not a “person” subject to suit under § 1983. See,
e.g., Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 676 (2009) (“[A] plaintiff must plead that
each Government-official defendant, through the official’s own individual actions,
has violated the Constitution.”). Therefore, I will summarily dismiss this action
without prejudice, pursuant to § 1915A(b)(1), as legally frivolous. 1
A separate Final Order will be entered herewith.
DATED: October 19, 2016
/s/ James P. Jones
United States District Judge
1
In any event, Hawks’ allegations do not state any constitutional claim actionable
under § 1983 against anyone. His allegations present merely his disagreement with the
jail’s medical staff about how time-sensitive his medical need was to have his eye
examined by a physician. See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 102 (1976) (holding that
only a prison official’s deliberate indifference to inmate’s serious medical needs violates
the Eighth Amendment). The deliberate indifference standard “is not satisfied by . . .
mere disagreement concerning ‘[q]uestions of medical judgment,’” Germain v. Shearin,
531 F. App’x 392, 395 (4th Cir. 2013) (unpublished) (quoting Russell v. Sheffer, 528 F.2d
318, 319 (4th Cir. 1975)). See also Bowring v. Godwin, 551 F.2d 44, 48 (4th Cir. 1977)
(finding that in constitutional claim regarding prison medical care, “the essential test is
one of medical necessity and not simply that which may be considered merely
desirable”).
-2-
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?