Owens v. Racine County Jail

Filing 11

ORDER DISMISSING CASE signed by Judge J.P. Stadtmueller on 3/28/2017. Action DISMISSED with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b)(1) for failure to state a claim. Clerk of Court to document that this inmate has brou ght an action that was dismissed for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b)(1); Clerk of Court also to document that this inmate has incurred a "strike" under 28 U.S.C. §1915(g). The Court CERT IFIES that any appeal from this matter would not be taken in good faith pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) unless the plaintiff offers bonafide arguments supporting his appeal. (cc: all counsel, via mail to Nathaniel Gerrod Owens and Sheriff at Racine County Jail)(jm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
NATHANIEL GERROD OWENS,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 17-CV-195-JPS

RACINE COUNTY JAIL, NURSE KATHY,
NURSE TELOH, OFFICER LAUX,
OFFICER CARBONARA, and OFFICER
WINSEL,

ORDER

Defendants.
On March 10, 2017, the Court screened the plaintiff’s original
complaint. (Docket #9). The Court found that the plaintiff had not stated any
viable claims for relief. Id. at 6. The Court required the plaintiff to file an
amended complaint no later than March 31, 2017. Id. On March 20, 2017, the
plaintiff submitted an amended complaint. (Docket #10).
As noted in its March 10, 2017 screening order, the Court is required
to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a
governmental entity or an officer or employee of a governmental entity. See
(Docket #9 at 1); 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint
or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally “frivolous
or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or
that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.
28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). The same standards cited in the original screening order
apply here. (Docket #9 at 1-3).
The amended complaint states that the plaintiff has “segures,” which
he describes as a “serious medical condition that can cause brain damage[.]”
(Docket #10 at 1). The plaintiff then relates the same series of events as his

original complaint regarding falling on spilled juice at the Racine County Jail
(the “Jail”). Id. In sum, he alleges that Officer Carbonara knew of some juice
on the floor and did not clean it, he slipped on the spill, and injured his head
and torso. Id. He claims to have severe back pain as a result of the fall. Id.
He called for help, which was offered by Officers Carbonara and Laux
and Nurse Kathy. Id. at 3. Nurse Kathy took the plaintiff’s blood pressure and
heart rate. Id. She then attempted to move the plaintiff, but he stated that he
could not move because of the extreme pain. Id. Eventually, the correctional
staff “forcefully put [the plaintiff] in a wheel chair” and took him to an
observation cell. Id. Nurse Kathy checked his vital signs again and said she
would be back to check on him, but never returned. Id. at 4. The plaintiff
alleges that Nurse Kathy knew of his “segures” condition, and he implies that
her care was not appropriate. Id. Finally, the plaintiff alleges that two hours
after the incident, he asked for medical attention from Nurse Teloh but she
refused to see him. Id. The plaintiff closes by stating that the defendants’
conduct “shows deliberate indifference, reckless conduct, negligence, Malice
Misconduct, Medical deliberate indifference etc. 8th [A]mendment.” Id. at 5.
The plaintiff still fails to state any viable claim for relief. As discussed
in the initial screening order, the Seventh Circuit generally does not impose
liability for slip-and-fall claims in prison. (Docket #9 at 4); Pyles v. Fahim, 771
F.3d 403, 410, n.25 (7th Cir. 2014); Bell, 88 Fed.Appx. at 127. To obtain
liability, the situation must present a substantial risk of serious injury. Bell v.
Ward, 88 Fed.Appx. 125, 127 (7th Cir. 2004). As Bell noted, “[a]lthough wet
floors do present a possibility that inmates might slip, Bell’s allegations do
not suggest a substantial risk of serious harm that reflects the deliberate
indifference required to impose liability under the Eighth Amendment.” Id.

Page 2 of 4

at 127. Similarly, the plaintiff’s allegations do not show that Officer
Carbonara disregarded a substantial risk of serious harm by failing to clean
up the juice spill. The officer had no reason to believe it posed a serious risk
of harm to anyone. This is true even assuming she knew of the plaintiff’s
condition; though he claims to have suffered extreme pain, he never alleges
that the fall exacerbated, or even had the potential to exacerbate, his
“segures” condition. Again, a typical negligence claim such as this does not
automatically become a constitutional injury just because it occurs in a prison.
See (Docket #9 at 4); Watkins v. Lancor, 558 Fed.Appx. 662, 665 (7th Cir. 2014).
The plaintiff also fails to state a claim for deliberate indifference to his
medical needs. It is important to consider the medical need at issue here. It
is not the plaintiff’s “segures” condition, whose onset apparently pre-dated
the fall. The condition is, instead, the pain in his head and torso caused by the
fall itself. As the Court noted in the initial screening order, it is not clear
whether pain from a fall could be considered a “serious medical condition”
if the fall itself was not actionable. (Docket #9 at 5). Even assuming the pain
was sufficiently serious, no one was indifferent to it. The plaintiff received
immediate medical attention after the fall. Further, the complaint does not
allege that the pain continued beyond the day of the fall. The plaintiff’s
apparent desire for more or different treatment is “mere disagreement with
the course of [his] medical treatment” which cannot sustain a deliberate
indifference claim. Snipes v. DeTella, 95 F.3d 586, 591 (7th Cir. 1996). If the
plaintiff has general concerns about the medical attention he receives for his
“segures” condition, those cannot be the basis of this lawsuit.

Page 3 of 4

Because the plaintiff has failed to present any viable causes of action
after being given an opportunity to amend his complaint, this action must
now be dismissed with prejudice.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that this action be and the same is hereby
DISMISSED with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and
1915A(b)(1) for failure to state a claim;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court document that
this inmate has brought an action that was dismissed for failure to state a
claim under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b)(1);
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court document that
this inmate has incurred a “strike” under 28 U.S.C. §1915(g);
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this order be sent to the
warden of the institution where the inmate is confined; and
THE COURT FURTHER CERTIFIES that any appeal from this matter
would not be taken in good faith pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) unless the
plaintiff offers bonafide arguments supporting his appeal.
The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly.
Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 28th day of March, 2017.
BY THE COURT:

J.P. Stadtmueller
U.S. District Judge

Page 4 of 4