Ealom v. United States
| Decision Date | 20 April 2018 |
| Docket Number | CASE NO. 18-3045-SAC |
| Parties | VALERIECE D. EALOM, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Kansas |
Plaintiff Valeriece D. Ealom, a federal revocation detainee at the CoreCivic Leavenworth Detention Center ("CoreCivic"), brings this pro se civil rights action pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). For the reasons discussed below, Plaintiff is ordered to show cause why her Complaint should not be dismissed.
Plaintiff's Complaint (Doc. 1) alleges harassment by CoreCivic staff on the basis of religion. Plaintiff names as defendants the United States, CoreCivic, Officer Malanowski, Officer Turkin, and Officer Putnam.
According to the Complaint, Plaintiff is Muslim and has approval from her CoreCivic unit manager to wear religious head wraps. The head wraps are provided to her by the CoreCivic chaplain. Even though she has permission to wear the head wraps, Defendants Malanowski, Turkin, and Putnam have "continuously harassed" her about the religious head gear, referring to it as a "rag" and threatening her with a disciplinary violation for wearing it. Doc. 1 at 6. The Complaint further alleges on one occasion, Defendant Turkin refused to allow Plaintiff to go to medical to receive her medication because she refused to remove her head wrap. Id.
Plaintiff claims her rights under the Eighth Amendment and her "religious rights" have been violated. She seeks training for CoreCivic staff, reprimands for Defendants Malanowski, Turkin, and Putnam, and compensatory damages of $250,000.
The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity or an officer or an employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if a plaintiff 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)(1)-(2).
"To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege the violation of a right secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States, and must show that the alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under color of state law." West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988) (citations omitted); Northington v. Jackson, 973 F.2d 1518, 1523 (10th Cir. 1992). A court liberally construes a pro se complaint and applies "less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers." Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). In addition, the court accepts all well-pleaded allegations in the complaint as true. Anderson v. Blake, 469 F.3d 910, 913 (10th Cir. 2006). On the other hand, "when the allegations in a complaint, however true, could not raise a claim of entitlement to relief," dismissal is appropriate. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 558 (2007).
A pro se litigant's "conclusory allegations without supporting factual averments are insufficient to state a claim upon which relief can be based." Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). "[A] plaintiff's obligation to provide the 'grounds' of his 'entitlement to relief' requires "more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (citations omitted). The complaint's "factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level" and "to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Id. at 555, 570.
The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals has explained "that, to state a claim in federal court, a complaint must explain what each defendant did to [the pro se plaintiff]; when the defendant did it; how the defendant's action harmed [the plaintiff]; and, what specific legal right the plaintiff believes the defendant violated." Nasious v. Two Unknown B.I.C.E. Agents, 492 F.3d 1158, 1163 (10th Cir. 2007). The court "will not supply additional factual allegations to round out a plaintiff's complaint or construct a legal theory on a plaintiff's behalf." Whitney v. New Mexico, 113 F.3d 1170, 1173-74 (10th Cir. 1997) (citation omitted).
The Tenth Circuit has pointed out that the Supreme Court's decisions in Twombly and Erickson gave rise to a new standard of review for § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) dismissals. See Kay v. Bemis, 500 F.3d 1214, 1218 (10th Cir. 2007) (citations omitted); see also Smith v. United States, 561 F.3d 1090, 1098 (10th Cir. 2009). As a result, courts "look to the specific allegations in the complaint to determine whether they plausibly support a legal claim for relief." Kay, 500 F.3d at 1218 (citation omitted). Under this new standard, "a plaintiff must 'nudge his claims across the line from conceivable to plausible.'" Smith, 561 F.3d at 1098 (citation omitted). "Plausible" in this context does not mean "likely to be true," but rather refers "to the scope of the allegations in a complaint: if they are so general that they encompass a wide swath of conduct, much of itinnocent," then the plaintiff has not "nudged [his] claims across the line from conceivable to plausible." Robbins v. Oklahoma, 519 F.3d 1242, 1247 (10th Cir. 2008) (citing Twombly, 127 S. Ct. at 1974).
Plaintiff's Complaint is subject to dismissal for a number of reasons.
The Eighth Amendment guarantees a prisoner the right to be free from cruel and unusual punishments. The United States Supreme Court has held that an inmate advancing a claim of cruel and unusual punishment based on inadequate provision of medical care must establish "deliberate indifference to serious medical needs." Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976); Boyett v. County of Washington, 282 F. App'x 667, 672 (10th Cir. 2008)(citing Mata v. Saiz, 427 F.3d 745, 751 (10th Cir. 2005)). The "deliberate indifference" standard includes an objective and a subjective component, both of which must be met to prevail on a claim of medical mistreatment. Martinez v. Garden, 430 F.3d 1302, 1304 (10th Cir. 2005).
In the objective analysis, the deprivation must be "sufficiently serious," and the inmate must show the presence of a "serious medical need." Estelle, 429 U.S. at 104-05. A medical need is considered "sufficiently serious" if it "has been diagnosed by a physician as mandating treatment." Oxendine v. Kaplan, 241 F.3d 1272, 1276 (10th Cir. 2001) (internal quotation marks omitted). "The subjective component is met if a prison official knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or safety." Martinez, 430 F.3d at 1304 (quoting Sealock v. Colorado, 218 F.3d 1205, 1209 (10th Cir. 2000)).
Plaintiff has not provided enough factual allegations to state a deliberate indifference claim. She alleges she missed a single dose of a prescribed medication. She states the medication is "life-sustaining" but does not provide its name or explain what health condition it treats. Generally, missing one dose of medication is not the type of deprivation that rises to the level of a constitutional violation. Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claim is subject to dismissal.
Furthermore, the United States Supreme Court has found that a Bivens remedy is not available to a prisoner seeking damages from the employees of a private prison for a violation of the prisoner's Eighth Amendment rights. In Minneci v. Pollard, 565 U.S. 118, 131 (2012), the Court stated:
[W]here ... a federal prisoner seeks damages from privately employed personnel working at a privately operated federal prison, where the conduct allegedly amounts to a violation of the Eighth Amendment, and where that conduct is of a kind that typically falls within the scope of traditional state tort law ... the prisoner must seek a remedy under state tort law. We cannot imply a Bivens remedy in such a case.
Id. Because the Court concludes that Plaintiff has an adequate remedy under Kansas tort law to address her claim for damages under the Eighth Amendment, that claim is subject to dismissal.
"Under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, inmates are entitled to the reasonable opportunity to pursue their sincerely-held religious beliefs." Gallagher v. Shelton, 587 F.3d 1063, 1069 (10th Cir. 2009)(citation omitted); McKinley v. Maddox, 493 F. App'x 928 (10th Cir. 2012); Makin v. Colorado Dept. of Corrections, 183 F.3d 1205 (10th Cir. 1999). In order to state a constitutional denial of free exercise of religion claim, a prisoner must allege the defendants "substantially burdened his sincerely-held religious beliefs." Gallagher, 587 F.3d at 1069. In addition, he "must assert conscious or intentional interference with his free exercise rights to state a valid claim." Id. at 1070. "If the prisoner satisfies this initial step, 'defendants may identify the legitimate penological interests that justified the impinging conduct,' and '[t]he burden then returns to the prisoner to show that these articulated concerns were irrational.'" McKinley, 493 F.App'x at 932 (citation omitted). The court then balances factors set forth by the Supreme Court "to determine the reasonableness" of the conduct. Id. The Tenth Circuit has identified "three broad ways government action may impose a substantial burden on religious exercise:"
requir[ing] participation in an activity prohibited by a sincerely held religious belief, or (2) prevent[ing] participation in conduct motivated by a sincerely held religious belief, or (3) plac[ing] substantial pressure on an adherent either not to engage in conduct motivated by a sincerely held religious belief or to engage in conduct contrary to a sincerely held religious belief, such as where the government presents the plaintiff with a Hobson's...
To continue reading
Request your trial