McKinney v. Bailey
| Decision Date | 22 March 2022 |
| Docket Number | C. A. 8:21-cv-03683-CMC-JDA |
| Parties | John McKinney, Plaintiff, v. Harriet Bailey, West P.I. Supervisor; Stokes, RN Care Provider; Burnett, RN Care Provider; Blake, RN Care Provider, Lee C.I. RN Anderson, Dr. Neville, Med Dir. SCDC April Clark, Dir. SCDC/Health Terr K. Marshall, Deputy, Warden of Lee C.I. Cecilia Reynolds, Dir. SCDC Bryan P. Stirling, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of South Carolina |
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
John McKinney (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, brings this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violations of his constitutional rights. Plaintiff is a state prisoner in the custody of the South Carolina Department of Corrections (“SCDC”) and is currently incarcerated at the MacDougall Correctional Institution.
Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), and Local Civil Rule 73.02, D.S.C., the undersigned Magistrate Judge is authorized to review such complaints for relief and to submit findings and recommendations to the District Court. Upon review, the undersigned finds that this action is subject to summary dismissal for the reasons below.
Plaintiff commenced this action by filing a Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. [Doc. 1.] By Order dated November 30 2021, the undersigned directed Plaintiff to file the necessary information and paperwork to bring the case into proper form for possible service, including properly completed service documents. [Doc. 7.]
That same day, the undersigned entered an Order regarding amendment to notify Plaintiff that this action was subject to summary dismissal for reasons identified by the Court in its Order. [Doc. 8.] The Court noted, however, that Plaintiff may be able to cure the pleading deficiencies of his Complaint and granted Plaintiff twenty-one days to file an amended complaint.[1] [Id. at 1, 14.] Further Plaintiff was specifically warned as follows:
If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint that corrects those deficiencies identified [in the Court's Order] this action will be recommended for summary dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
[Id. at 15.] On December 27, 2021, after the expiration of the deadline the Court set to bring the case into proper form and to file an amended complaint, the Court received a motion filed by Plaintiff that was construed as a motion for copies at no expense. [Doc. 11.] However, Plaintiff did not file an amended complaint or otherwise comply with the Court's Orders.
The Court then entered Orders dated January 3, 2022, denying Plaintiff's motion for copies, directing Plaintiff's attention to the Court's prior Orders, and again instructing Plaintiff to bring the case into proper form for possible service of process and to file an amended complaint. [Doc. 13.]
However, Plaintiff did not respond to the Court's Orders and did not file an amended complaint. Accordingly, the undersigned entered a Report on February 1, 2022, recommending dismissal of the action pursuant to Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1916A for failure to state a claim. [Doc. 18.]
On February 24, 2022, the Honorable Cameron McGowan Currie entered an Order ruling on and adopting in part the Report and Recommendation. [Doc. 22.] In her Order, Judge Currie noted that Plaintiff had filed a letter evidencing an intent to amend his Complaint, and she therefore provided another opportunity for Plaintiff to do so. [Id. at 3.] Judge Currie also ordered as follows: (1) Plaintiff's negligence, violation of prison policy, and workers' compensation claims asserted in his original Complaint are not actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; (2) Defendants SCDC, SCDC Contracted Medical Provider, Stirling, Marshall, Reynolds, and Clark are entitled to dismissal from this action because they are either not amenable to suit under § 1983 or there are no allegations against these Defendants relevant to the claim of deliberate indifference; and (3) Plaintiff may be able to make out a claim for deliberate indifference of medical needs but must come forward with specific allegations against the remaining named Defendants. [Id.]
Then, on March 2, 2022, Plaintiff filed a hand-written Amended Complaint [Doc. 26], a motion to amend the Complaint [Doc. 27], and service documents for the Defendants named in the Amended Complaint [Docs. 28; 28-1].[2] Accordingly, this matter is before the undersigned for a review of the Amended Complaint.
Plaintiff makes the following allegations in his Amended Complaint.[3] [Doc. 26.] Plaintiff contends that he was injured on August 25, 2014, while working at Lee Correctional Institution (“Lee”) when a stack of six hundred pound product bags fell on him. [Id. at 2.] Plaintiff was crushed and pinned to the floor and he suffered a dislocated hip and injuries to his lower back, leg, and ankle. [Id.] Plaintiff's supervisor, Harriet Bailey, he was near him when he was injured. [Id.] Bailey and another inmate immediately took Plaintiff to medical. [Id.]
At medical, Nurse Burnett gave Plaintiff a 3-day supply of ibuprofen and scheduled a follow-up visit for August 29, 2014. [Id.] On August 26, 2014, Plaintiff was still in pain in his lower back and hip and was seen by Nurse Anderson, who scheduled Plaintiff for a follow-up visit for August 28, 2014. [Id.]
Then, Plaintiff wrote to Nurse Stokes because he was still experiencing pain, but Nurse Stokes never answered his request. [ Id. at 2-3.] Plaintiff contends that he did not receive adequate medical treatment. [Id. at 3.] As such, he had his family call Warden Reynolds. [Id.]
On September 3, 2014, Plaintiff was seen at medical by Nurse Anderson. [Id.] Plaintiff told her that he was in extreme pain but had not had any follow-up appointments or x-rays and had not been seed by a doctor. [Id. at 3-4.] Nurse Anderson then referred Plaintiff to Nurse Blake. [Id. at 4.] Plaintiff explained what had been taking place to Nurse Blake and stated he was still experiencing extreme pain. [Id.] Nurse Blake told Plaintiff that they were out of ibuprofen, so she issued Plaintiff Motrin and stated she would schedule an x-ray. [Id.]
On September 9, 2014, fifteen days after Plaintiff's injury, he was seen by Dr. Neville. [Id.] Then, on September 11, 2014, seventeen days after his injury, Plaintiff was given an x-ray. [Id. at 4-5.]
Based on these allegations, Plaintiff contends that the actions of Defendants Neville, Burnett, Anderson, Stokes, and Blake were “not in line with accepted medical practice” in violation of his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. [Id. at 5.] Plaintiff contends that each of these Defendants knew or should have known of the substantial risk of harm to Plaintiff given the delay in adequate medical care. [Id.] Plaintiff contends that the actions of these Defendants constitute deliberate indifference to his medical needs. [Id. at 6.] Plaintiff contends these Defendants tried to cover up the accident. [Id.] Plaintiff contends he underwent an MRI, which showed that he had a left lumbar injury. [Id.] Plaintiff contends that he has been denied adequate medical care. [Id.]
For his relief, Plaintiff requests nominal damages in the amount of $10.1 million, compensatory damages in the amount of $500, 000, punitive damages in the amount of $100, 000, a jury trial, declaratory and injunctive relief requiring outside medical care, as well as other relief. [ Id. at 9-10.]
Plaintiff filed this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, the in forma pauperis statute. This statute authorizes the District Court to dismiss a case if it is satisfied that the action “fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted ” is “frivolous or malicious, ” or “seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Further, Plaintiff is a prisoner under the definition in 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(c), and “seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). Thus, even if Plaintiff had prepaid the full filing fee, this Court would be charged with screening Plaintiff's lawsuit to identify cognizable claims or to dismiss the Amended Complaint if (1) it were frivolous, malicious, or failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or (2) if it sought monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
Because Plaintiff is a pro se litigant, his pleadings are accorded liberal construction and held to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by attorneys. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93-94 (2007). The requirement of liberal construction does not mean that the Court can ignore a clear failure in the pleading to allege facts which set forth a claim cognizable in a federal district court. See Weller v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 901 F.2d 387 (4th Cir. 1990). Even under the less stringent standard applicable to pro se pleadings, the Amended Complaint is subject to summary dismissal.
Although the Court must liberally construe the pro se pleadings and a plaintiff is not required to plead facts sufficient to prove his case as an evidentiary matter in his pleadings, a complaint “must contain sufficient factual matter accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (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) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial