Rayburn v. Joe Blue (Jailer)

• Decision Date: 08 December 2015
• Docket Number: CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:15-CV-P91-JHM
• Citation: 154 F.Supp.3d 523
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Kentucky
• Parties: Bennett Lee Rayburn, Plaintiff v. Joe Blue (Jailer) et al., Defendants

154 F.Supp.3d 523

Bennett Lee Rayburn, Plaintiff

v.Joe Blue (Jailer) et al., Defendants

CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:15-CV-P91-JHM

United States District Court, W.D. Kentucky, at Owensboro .

Signed December 8, 2015

Bennett Lee Rayburn, Leitchfield, KY, pro se.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Joseph H. McKinley Jr

., Chief Judge, United States District Court

This is a pro se civil rights action brought by convicted prisoner Bennett Lee Rayburn pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983

. The Court has granted Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis . This matter is before the Court for screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and McGore v. Wrigglesworth , 114 F.3d 601 (6th Cir.1997), overruled on other grounds by

Jones v. Bock , 549 U.S. 199, 127 S.Ct. 910, 166 L.Ed.2d 798 (2007). For the reasons set forth below, the action will be dismissed in part and allowed to continue in part, and the Court will allow Plaintiff to amend his claims.

I. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

In his Complaint (DN 1), Plaintiff, who is currently incarcerated in the Grayson County Detention Center, makes allegations regarding his confinement at Hopkins County (Kentucky) Detention Center (HCDC). He brings suit against four Defendants—Joe Blue, the HCDC Jailer (Defendant Blue); Chris Eubanks, the HCDC Medical Supervisor (Defendant Eubanks); Officer (Unknown) Harless, HCDC Guard (Defendant Harless); and Robert James, the Madisonville (Kentucky) Sanitation Department Supervisor (Defendant James). He has sued Defendants Blue and James in both their official and individual capacities and Defendants Eubanks and Harless in their official capacities only.

Plaintiff first alleges that when he was housed at HCDC, he worked for the Madisonville Sanitation Department under hazardous working conditions. He alleges that these conditions included “almost being ran over by speeding forklifts and almost being ran over by heavy equipment and garbage trucks,” cleaning debris from inside the chute of an activated trash compactor, and sorting trash that contained used syringes. He alleges that he notified HCDC staff on several occasions about these working conditions.

Plaintiff further alleges that while working on November 25, 2014, an inmate was caught smoking inside one of the work crew's porta-potties. He alleges that Defendant James, the Sanitation Department Supervisor, then told a group of inmates to tell him if they had to “use the potty” so that he could “come hold our dicks for us.”

Plaintiff next alleges that while working on December 2, 2014, he was poked in the finger by a dirty syringe while sorting recyclables. He states that an unnamed “sanitation supervisor” poured alcohol on his finger and told him that a report would be filed and that the HCDC medical staff would see him upon his arrival there. He next alleges that, when he arrived at HCDC, he asked to see the medical staff and was told to submit a sick call form. He alleges that was he was not given a sick call form until December 6, 2014, which he promptly completed on such date. He then alleges that Defendant Harless picked up his completed sick call form, “filled it out,” and then brought it back to him twenty minutes later and scratched her name out. Plaintiff indicates that as a result of this action, he was never seen by HCDC medical staff for his syringe injury. He alleges that he then filed a grievance related to this action on December 6, 2014, and that the grievance officer responded by stating that he had “no knowledge of a work injury.” Plaintiff states that since that time he has repeatedly requested to be tested for HIV and hepatitis

and that the HCDC medical staff have only ignored him.

Finally, Plaintiff alleges that he filed a grievance on February 11, 2015, because HCDC “had no law books or inmate legal aides to help indigent inmates or inmates that can't afford paid attorneys to do legal work.” He alleges that the hearing officer responded that “your rights are not being violated.” He further alleges that he then filed a grievance appeal regarding this issue and that the appellate hearing officer responded by telling him that his rights were not being violated because he could access the court system by sending and receiving letters and documents.

Plaintiff concludes his Complaint by stating that he is making claims for inadequate medical attention; placement in a hazardous work environment; the making of unwanted sexual comments by his work supervisor; and a failure to provide him law books to help in the filing of this lawsuit. Plaintiff seeks monetary and punitive damages. He also seeks injunctive relief—specifically that a trust be established to pay any future medical fees resulting from his contraction of hepatitis

or HIV. He is no longer incarcerated at HCDC, so HCDC can no longer provide him with testing.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Because Plaintiff is a prisoner seeking relief against governmental entities, officers, and/or employees, this Court must review the instant action under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A

. Under § 1915A, the trial court must review the complaint and dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the court determines that it is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See § 1915A(b)(1), (2) ; McGore v. Wrigglesworth , 114 F.3d at 608.

A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.

Neitzke v. Williams , 490 U.S. 319, 325, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989)

. The trial court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Id. at 327, 109 S.Ct. 1827. In order to survive dismissal for failure to state a claim, “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, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007) ).

“[A] district court must (1) view the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and (2) take all well-pleaded factual allegations as true.” Tackett v. M & G Polymers, USA, LLC , 561 F.3d 478, 488 (6th Cir.2009)

(citing Gunasekera v. Irwin , 551 F.3d 461, 466 (6th Cir.2009) (citations omitted)). “[A] pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Erickson v. Pardus , 551 U.S. 89, 127 S.Ct. 2197, 167 L.Ed.2d 1081 (2007) (quoting Estelle v. Gamble , 429 U.S. 97, 106, 97 S.Ct. 285, 50 L.Ed.2d 251 (1976) ). However, while liberal, this standard of review does require more than the bare assertion of legal conclusions. See

Columbia Natural Res., Inc. v. Tatum , 58 F.3d 1101, 1109 (6th Cir.1995) ). The court's duty “does not require [it] to conjure up unpled allegations,” McDonald v. Hall , 610 F.2d 16, 19 (1st Cir.1979), or to create a claim for a plaintiff. Clark v. Nat'l Travelers Life Ins. Co. , 518 F.2d 1167, 1169 (6th Cir.1975). To command otherwise would require the court “to explore exhaustively all potential claims of a pro se plaintiff, [and] would also transform the district court from its legitimate advisory role to the improper role of an advocate seeking out the strongest arguments and most successful strategies for a party.” Beaudett v. City of Hampton , 775 F.2d 1274, 1278 (4th Cir.1985).

III. ANALYSIS

A. 42 U.S.C. Section 1983

Section 1983

creates no substantive rights, but merely provides remedies for deprivations of rights established elsewhere. Flint ex rel. Flint v. Ky. Dep't of Corr. , 270 F.3d 340, 351 (6th Cir.2001). Two elements are required to state a claim under § 1983. Gomez v. Toledo , 446 U.S. 635, 640, 100 S.Ct. 1920, 64 L.Ed.2d 572 (1980). “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, 108 S.Ct. 2250, 101 L.Ed.2d 40 (1988). Absent either element, a § 1983 claim will not lie. Christy v. Randlett , 932 F.2d 502, 504 (6th Cir.1991).

1. Eighth Amendment Violations

The Eighth Amendment protects convicted prisoners from the “unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain.” An Eighth Amendment claim has two components, one objective, one subjective. First, the alleged deprivation must be, objectively, “sufficiently serious,” i.e. , the “official's act or omission must result in the denial of the minimal civilized measure of life's necessities,” Farmer v. Brennan , 511 U.S. 825, 834, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994)

(citations and internal quotation marks omitted). Second, the official must have been “deliberately indifferent” to the inmate's health or safety. Id.

a. Deliberate Indifference to a Serious Medical Need

As set forth above, Plaintiff alleges that he was poked in his finger by a used syringe on December 2, 2014, while he was sorting recyclables for the Madisonville Sanitation Department. He further alleges that at the time he was treated on-site by the “sanitation supervisor” with rubbing alcohol and that he was told that he would be seen by HCDC medical staff when he returned there. Plaintiff alleges that he completed a written request for medical attention on December 6, 2014, but that Defendant Harless, a guard at HCDC, took his written request and then returned it to him approximately 20 minutes later. Finally, Plaintiff alleges that he has made repeated requests to be seen by medical staff since that date, including filing a grievance for such, so that he could be screened for HIV and hepatitis

, but that his requests have been ignored and his grievance denied.

Based on these allegations and related information in the Complaint, the Court is construing Plaintiff's Complaint as alleging Eighth...