Credle v. Lewis

Decision Date05 March 2013
Docket NumberNo. 5:11-CT-3120-BO,5:11-CT-3120-BO
CourtU.S. District Court — Eastern District of North Carolina
PartiesJONATHAN CREDLE, Plaintiff, v. ROBERT C. LEWIS, et al., Defendants.
ORDER

Jonathan Credle, an inmate within the custody of North Carolina, filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action.1 Defendants are now before the court with a motion to dismiss [D.E. 25]. Plaintiff responded to the motion [D.E. 28]. Plaintiff also seeks a motion for injunction or default judgment [D.E. 29] and another motion for preliminary injunction [D.E. 31] to which defendants responded. In this posture, the matter is ripe for determination.

A. Issues

Credle appears to assert several claims. Each is difficult to understand and separate out, as each claim appears to be intertwined as presented by plaintiff. The named defendants are Jason Fowler, Brett Godwin, Josh Gore, Kristopher Strickland, Michelle Williams, Robert Todd, Michelle Ivey, Charmon Holsworth, and Casey Blackwell. The court identifies the claims as: 1) an excessive use of force incident on July 31, 2010, by defendant Casey Blackwell;2 2) deliberateindifference to a serious medical condition by defendants Todd and Ivey; 3) mail violations on October 4, 2010, by defendant Fowler; 4) retaliation by defendant Holsworth and defendant Williams; 5) a second use of force incident on October 17, 2010, by defendants Godwin, Gore, and Fowler; and (5) retaliation and harassment after the second use of force incident. Compl., IV. Statement of Claim.

B. Discussion
i. Standard of Review

A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) determines only whether a claim is stated; "it does not resolve contests surrounding the facts, the merits of a claim, or the applicability of defenses." Republican Party v. Martin, 980 F.2d 943, 952 (4th Cir.1992). A claim is stated if the complaint contains "sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'" U, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)); see also Francis v. Giacomelli, 588 F.3d 186, 193 (4th Cir.2009) ("The plausibility standard ... requires the plaintiff to articulate facts, when accepted as true, that show ... the plausibility of entitlement to relief") (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).

In making the determination as to whether a claim is stated, "[the] court accepts all well-pled facts as true and construes these facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff," but does not consider "legal conclusions, elements of a cause of action, and bare assertions devoid of further factual enhancement." Nemet Chevrolet, Ltd. v. Consumeraffairs.com, Inc., 591 F.3d 250, 255 (4th Cir. 2009). Nor will the court accept as true "unwarranted inferences, unreasonable conclusions, or arguments." Wahi v. Charleston Area Med. Ctr., Inc., 562 F.3d 599, 615 n. 26 (4th Cir. 2009). Moreover, a court may consider "documents incorporated into the[pleadings] by reference, and matters of which a court may take judicial notice." Tellabs. Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights. Ltd., 551 U.S. 308, 322 (2007); Thompson v. Greene, 427 F.3d 263, 268 (4th Cir. 2005); Fayetteville Investors v. Commercial Builders. Inc., 936 F.2d 1462, 1465 (4th Cir. 1991).

ii. Qualified Immunity

Defendants assert qualified immunity. Qualified immunity provides that "government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982): see Reichle v. Howards, 132 S. Ct. 2088, 2093 (2012); Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231-32 (2009). Qualified immunity protects "all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law." Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335, 341 (1986); see Reichle, 132 S. Ct. at 2093; Messerschmidt v. Millender, 132 S. Ct. 1235, 1244-45 (2012); Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 131 S. Ct. 2074, 2085 (2011); Pearson, 555 U.S. at 231-32.

The court must ask two questions to determine whether qualified immunity applies. See, e.g., Reichle, 132 S. Ct. at 2093; Pearson, 555 U.S. at 232; Evans v. Chalmers, No. 11-1436, 2012 WL 6554846, at *5 (4th Cir. Dec. 17, 2012); Doe ex rel. Johnson v. S.C. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 597 F.3d 163, 169 (4th Cir. 2010); Unus v. Kane, 565 F.3d 103, 123 n.24 (4th Cir. 2009); Miller v. Prince George's Cnty., 475 F.3d 621, 626-27 (4th Cir. 2007); Bostic v. Rodriguez, 667 F. Supp. 2d 591, 605-06 (E.D.N.C. 2009). The court decides which question to address first. Pearson, 555 U.S. at 236: see Reichle, 132 S. Ct. at 2093; al-Kidd, 131 S. Ct. at 2080. The court must determine "whether the facts that a plaintiff has alleged . . . make out a violation of aconstitutional right." Pearson, 555 U.S. at 232. The court also must determine "whether the right at issue was clearly established at the time of defendant's alleged misconduct." Id. (quotation omitted). "A Government official's conduct violates clearly established law when, at the time of the challenged conduct, [t]he contours of [a] right [are] sufficiently clear that every reasonable official would have understood that what he is doing violates that right." al-Kidd, 131 S. Ct. at 2083 (alterations in original) (quotations omitted); see Reichle, 132 S. Ct. at 2093; Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 640 (1987). The United States Supreme Court does "not require a case directly on point, but existing precedent must have placed the statutory or constitutional question beyond debate." al-Kidd, 131 S. Ct. at 2083; see Reichle, 132 S. Ct. at 2093. Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity if the answer to either question is "no." See, e.g., al-Kidd, 131 S. Ct. at 2080; Miller, 475 F.3d at 627; Bostic, 667 F. Supp. 2d at 606.

iii. Deliberate Indifference

Deliberate indifference to a prisoner's serious medical needs violates the Eighth Amendment. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976); see Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 535 n. 16 (1979). In order to prove such a claim, Credle "must demonstrate that the officers acted with 'deliberate indifference' (subjective) to [his] 'serious medical needs' (objective)." Iko v. Shreve, 535 F.3d 225, 241 (4th Cir. 2008) (quoting Estelle, 429 U.S. at 104). In cases involving the denial of or the delay in providing medical treatment to a prisoner, the prison official must know of and disregard an objectively serious condition, medical need, or risk of harm. See, e.g., id.; Sosebee v. Murphy, 797 F.2d 179, 182-83 (4th Cir. 1986). Further, disagreement with medical staff over the course of treatment is not sufficient to state an Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim. See, e.g., De'Lonta v. Angelone, 330 F.3d 630, 635 (4th Cir.2003); Russell v. Sheffer, 528 F.2d 318, 319 (4th Cir. 1975) (per curiam). Likewise, mere negligence in diagnosis or treatment does not state a constitutional claim. Estelle, 429 U.S. at 105-06. Lastly, a section 1983 plaintiff must allege the personal involvement of a defendant. See, e.g., Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1948; Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 691-92 (1978); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 850 (4th Cir. 1985); and, Fisher v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, 690 F.2d 1133, 1142-43 (4th Cir. 1982).

Here, Credle states that he continually sought medical care from the excessive force incident of July 31, 2010. He states that he filed emergency requests, but that he was not seen. He appears to assert that his condition grew more serious, yet he did not receive medical attention. Credle states that Nurse Todd explained to him that he has suffered damage to his heart, lungs, and right eye, yet he did not provide any care to him. He also states that "Nurse Ivey threatened [him] with write ups to discourage emergency decleration [sic]." Credle states that he suffers from nose bleeds and has developed a disease called Bradycardia as a result of the use of force incident, yet when he seeks medical attention he does not receive it. The motion to dismiss as to this claim is denied.

iv. Excessive Force on October 17, 2010

The court must first determine whether defendants violated plaintiff's constitutional rights. It is clearly established that the Eighth Amendment forbids the "unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain" against inmates. Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 319 (1986) (internal quotation marks omitted). Not every infliction of pain is forbidden, however, and prison officials may apply force to an inmate "in a good faith effort to maintain or restore [prison] discipline." Id. at 320 (internal quotation marks omitted). However, where prison officials use force"maliciously and sadistically for the very purpose of causing harm," an Eighth Amendment violation has occurred. Id. at 320-21 (internal quotation marks omitted). Furthermore, the Supreme Court has held "the use of excessive physical force against a prisoner may constitute cruel and unusual punishment [even] when the inmate does not suffer serious injury." Wilkins v. Gaddy, 559 U.S. 34 , ____, 130 S. Ct. 1175, 1176 (2010) (per curiam). The court must look at "the nature of the force rather than the extent of the injury." Id. "This is not to say the 'absence of serious injury' is irrelevant to the Eighth Amendment inquiry." Id. at 1178 (citation omitted). It is one factor in applying and reviewing the Eighth Amendment analysis. Id.

In determining whether prison officials have acted maliciously and sadistically, a court should balance: (I) '"the need for the application of force,'" (ii) '"the relationship between the need and the amount of force that was used,'" (iii) the threat reasonably perceived by the responsible officials, and (iv) "any efforts made to temper the severity of a forceful response." Whitley, 475 U.S. at 321 (quoting Johnson v. Glick, 481 F.2d 1028, 1033 (2d Cir. 1973)). Not every malevolent...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT