Wheeler v. Crews, Case No. 5:14cv271/WS/CJK
| Decision Date | 26 October 2015 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 5:14cv271/WS/CJK |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Florida |
| Parties | JIMMY LEE WHEELER, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL D. CREWS, et al., Defendants. |
Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, has filed a fourth amended civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 38). Upon review of the complaint, the court concludes that plaintiff's claims against defendants Churchwell, Corizon and Ortiz should be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and that plaintiff's claims against defendants Davis, Ladele and Rodriguez should be remanded to the undersigned for further proceedings.
Plaintiff is an inmate of the Florida penal system currently confined at the Northwest Florida Reception Center (NWFRC). Plaintiff's fourth amended complaint names six defendants: William Churchwell, former Warden of NWFRC; Corizon Health; Dr. G. Ladele, Medical Director at NWFRC; Dr. Nancy Ortiz, Chief Health Officer at NWFRC; ARNP C. Davis, a nurse at NWFRC; and Nurse Rodriguez, an intake nurse at NWFRC. (Doc. 38, pp. 1-3). Plaintiff sues the defendants in their individual and official capacities. (Doc. 38, p. 1). Plaintiff alleges that in February of 2014, he experienced a "near death" incident when he was served "spoiled diseased infected food" by food service at NWFRC, which caused "illnesses, upon which he now suffer[s] sever[e]ly that's 'life threatening' and on growing [sic]". (Doc. 38, p. 7). Plaintiff states that as a result of the February 2014 incident, he was placed on a therapeutic diet (a "low residue diet") by non-party Dr. Raquel Skidmore. (See Doc. 10, p. 37 in ECF). Plaintiff's claims in this lawsuit arise out of the discontinuance of that therapeutic diet, as well as the alleged lack of medical care for other issues. Specifically, plaintiff claims defendant ARNP Davis was deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs on May 16, 2014, when she discontinued his therapeutic diet. (Doc. 38, p. 9). Plaintiff claims defendant Dr. Ladele was deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs when she affirmed ARNP Davis' decision to discontinue the therapeutic diet, and when she later ordered "a treatment diet pass and x-ray" on March 26, 2015, but then "sided" with ARNP Davis and affirmed the discontinuance of the "therapeutic treatments and diet passes" on April 27, 2015. (Doc. 38, pp. 8, 12). Plaintiff claims defendant Dr. Ortiz was deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs on April 16, 2015, when Ortiz, after interviewing plaintiff and reviewing his chart, "advised plaintiff Wheeler not to make any falls or unnecessary contacts because she was aware of his issue of nerve related illnesses that could easily send him into a state of permanent 'paralyzation'", but Ortiz offered no medical treatment for plaintiff's condition which plaintiff describes as "constant pains and stiffness in his head, neck, jaw, temple, ear and joint". (Doc. 38, p. 9). Plaintiff also complains that during the April 16, 2015 appointment, Dr. Ortiz "upheld" defendant Davis' decision to discontinue plaintiff's therapeutic diet. (Id.). Plaintiff claims defendant Nurse Rodriguez was deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs on July 10, 2014, when she denied him foot powder to treat an "infectious disease" that had "spreaded [sic] down to his feet, that was seriously infected and turning black on his toes." (Doc. 38, p. 10). Plaintiff seeks to hold defendant former Warden Churchwell liable for the foregoing deficiencies in medical care, on the grounds that Churchwell knew of plaintiff's issues through plaintiff's administrative grievances, but Churchwell failed to act. (Doc. 38, p. 7). Plaintiff seeks to hold defendant Corizon Health liable on the basis that it has a duty, pursuant to its official policy, to provide quality medical care to inmates, but its employees failed to provide such care. (Doc. 38, pp. 8, 18-19). As relief, plaintiff seeks $55,000.00 in compensatory damages against each individual defendant; $55,000.00 in punitive damages against each individual defendant; $25,000,000.00 in compensatory damages against defendant Corizon; and injunctive relief in the form of a transfer to the Central Florida area. (Doc. 38, pp. 11, 20).
Title 28 U.S.C. § 1915 mandates that the district court dismiss an in forma pauperis action if the court determines that the action is "(i) frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Since plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the court liberally construes his pleadings. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 92 S. Ct. 594, 30 L. Ed. 2d 652 (1972). The court may not, however, rewrite an otherwise deficient pleading to sustain a cause of action or particular claims. See Snow v. DirecTV, Inc., 450 F.3d 1314, 1320 (11th Cir. 2006); Tannenbaum v. United States, 148 F.3d 1262, 1263 (11th Cir. 1998).
Sua sponte dismissals for failure to state a claim are governed by the Rule 12(b)(6) standard. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6); Mitchell v. Farcass, 112 F.3d 1483, 1485 (11th Cir. 1997). In determining whether a complaint states a claim upon which relief may be granted, the court accepts all well-pleaded factual allegations in the complaint as true and evaluates all reasonable inferences derived from those facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Hunnings v. Texaco, Inc., 29 F.3d 1480, 1483 (11th Cir. 1994). There are a few exceptions to this rule, however, such as where the facts alleged are internally inconsistent or where they run counter to facts of which the court can take judicial notice. 5B CHARLES A. WRIGHT AND ARTHUR R. MILLER, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 1357 (2008). Further, only well pleaded factual allegations are taken as true and only reasonable inferences are drawn in favor of the plaintiff. Franklin v. Curry, 738 F.3d 1246, 1251 (11th Cir. 2013) ; see also Randall v. Scott, 610 F.3d 710, 709-10 (11th Cir. 2010) (). "A pleading that offers 'labels and conclusions' or 'a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.'" Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S. Ct. at 1949 (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 167 L. Ed. 2d 929 (2007)).
As the Supreme Court reiterated in Iqbal, supra, although Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure does not require detailed factual allegations, it does demand "more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation." Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949. A complaint must state a plausible claim for relief, and "[a] claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Id. The mere possibility that the defendant acted unlawfully is insufficient to survive dismissal for failure to state a claim. Id. The complaint must include "[f]actual allegations . . . [sufficient] to raise a right to relief above the speculative level," Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 127 S. Ct. at 1965, that is, "across the line from conceivable to plausible." Id., 550 U.S. at 570, 127 S. Ct. at 1974.
A complaint is also subject to dismissal for failure to state a claim if the allegations - on their face - show that an affirmative defense bars recovery on the claim. Marsh v. Butler Cnty., Ala., 268 F.3d 1014, 1022 (11th Cir. 2001); see also Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 215, 127 S. Ct. 910, 920-21, 166 L. Ed. 2d 798 (2007) ().
Taking the allegations of plaintiff's fourth amended complaint as true and construing them in the light most favorable to him, the complaint fails to state a plausible medical deliberate indifference claim against defendants Churchwell or Corizon. A prisoner claiming he was deprived of medical care in violation of the Eighth Amendment must show "(1) a serious medical need; (2) the defendants' deliberate indifference to that need; and (3) causation between that indifference and the plaintiff's injury." Danley v. Allen, 540 F.3d 1298, 1310 (11th Cir. 2008). A serious medical need is "one that has been diagnosed by a physician as mandating treatment or one that is so obvious that even a lay person would easily recognize the necessity for a doctor's attention." Farrow v. West, 320 F.3d 1235, 1243 (11th Cir. 2003) (citing Hill v. Dekalb Reg'l Youth Det. Ctr, 40 F.3d 1176, 1186 (11th Cir. 1994), overruled in part on other grounds by Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730, 122 S. Ct. 2508, 153 L. Ed. 2d 666 (2002)); see also Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834, 114 S. Ct. 1970, 128 L. Ed. 2d 811 (1994) ().
Deliberate indifference has three components: "(1) subjective knowledge of a risk of serious harm; (2) disregard of that risk; (3) by conduct that is more than mere negligence." Farrow, 320...
To continue reading
Request your trial