Wright v. Roach
| Docket Number | 2:23-cv-01635-MGL-MGB |
| Decision Date | 14 July 2023 |
| Parties | Douglas Alexander Wright, Plaintiff, v. Allane Roach; Sonya Paz; and Carol Fernandez, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of South Carolina |
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Douglas Alexander Wright (“Plaintiff”), a state detainee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, brings this civil action seeking relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging deliberate indifference to medical needs against several nurses at the Spartanburg County Detention Center: Allane Roach; Sonya Paz and Carol Fernandez (collectively, “Defendants”). Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.), the undersigned is authorized to review all pretrial matters in this case and submit findings and recommendations to the assigned United States District Judge. For the reasons discussed below, the undersigned recommends that this action be partially dismissed.
The instant case is premised on a series of dental issues Plaintiff experienced while housed at the Spartanburg County Detention Center. Specifically, Plaintiff claims that on May 3, 2022, he developed an “extreme toothache” caused by a hole in one of his wisdom teeth and submitted a grievance seeking “immediate medical attention” for the same. (Dkt. No. 1 at 7.) On May 6, 2022, Plaintiff submitted a second grievance stating, (Id.) Plaintiff claims that Defendant Roach eventually responded to his grievance stating “Addressed.” (Id.) Although it is unclear from the face of the Complaint how the dental issue was “addressed,” it seems Plaintiff may have been provided with pain medication as indicated in his next grievance, filed May 16, 2022. Indeed, Plaintiff notified the medical staff that “pain pills” and “oral gel” had not reduced his toothache and that he needed his wisdom tooth pulled. (Id.) Defendant Roach apparently responded to Plaintiff's grievance stating (Id. at 7-8.)
On June 13, 2022, Plaintiff filed a grievance stating that he had developed an abscess on his gums due to a different tooth that broke and began to rot in 2020.[1] (Id. at 8.) Defendant Roach responded to Plaintiff's grievance stating, “Nurse to see.” (Id.) On August 3, 2022, Plaintiff filed another grievance noting the abscess on his gums, and Defendant Roach again responded, “Nurse to see.” (Id.) On November 9, 2022, Plaintiff filed a third grievance regarding the abscess on his gums, and Defendant Paz responded, “I will inform Nurse Carol.”[2] (Id.) While Plaintiff claims that he was “never seen or treated” in response to the November 9th grievance, he also asserts- albeit vaguely-that Defendant Carol Fernandez did see him, but denied him treatment. (See id. at 5.) The Complaint does not specify whether Plaintiff received any medical treatment in relation to the June 13th or August 3rd grievances.
Notwithstanding the grievances above, Plaintiff claims that he was ultimately “denied his wisdom tooth pulled and medication.” (Id. at 9.) Plaintiff alleges that, as a result, he lost half of his wisdom tooth, and the remaining half continues to cause periodic bleeding and pain, which apparently impact his ability to sleep. (Id.) The Complaint also mentions ongoing gum issues due to Plaintiff's rotten tooth. (Id.) Plaintiff seeks monetary damages in an amount no less than $100,000 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Upon reviewing the initial filings in this case, the undersigned issued an order notifying Plaintiff that his action was not in proper form because he had submitted an incomplete Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees and failed to provide a set of service documents for Defendants. (Dkt. No. 5 at 1.) The undersigned also informed Plaintiff that parts of his Complaint were likely subject to summary dismissal for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. (Id. at 3-4.) In light of Plaintiff's pro se status, however, the undersigned gave him an opportunity to file the outstanding proper form documents and an amended complaint in twenty-one days. The undersigned warned Plaintiff that failure to comply with the Court's instructions within the time prescribed by the order would result in summary dismissal. (Id. at 2, 4.)
On June 9, 2023, Plaintiff filed a properly completed Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees (Dkt. No. 2-3) and a set of proposed service documents (Dkt. No. 8). Plaintiff did not, however, file an amended complaint. Accordingly, the undersigned issued a second order reminding Plaintiff that he still needed to file an amended pleading that cured the deficiencies identified in his original Complaint; the undersigned emphasized that if Plaintiff failed to comply with these directions, some of his claims may be summarily dismissed. (Dkt. No. 9.) To date, Plaintiff has not filed an amended pleading, and the time to do so has lapsed.
Under established local procedure in this judicial district, a careful review has been made of the pro se Complaint pursuant to the procedural provisions of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), Pub. L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321 (1996). The Complaint has been filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, which permits an indigent litigant to commence an action in federal court without prepaying the administrative costs of proceeding with the lawsuit, and is also governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which requires the court to review a complaint filed by a prisoner that seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity.
To protect against possible abuses, the court must dismiss any prisoner complaints, or portions of complaints, that are frivolous or malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); see also id. § 1915A(b). A complaint is frivolous if it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 31 (1992). A claim based on a meritless legal theory may be dismissed sua sponte “at any time” under § 1915(e)(2)(B). Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324-25 (1989). The United States Supreme Court has explained that the statute “is designed largely to discourage the filing of, and waste of judicial and private resources upon, baseless lawsuits.” Id. at 326.
As to failure to state a claim, a complaint filed in federal court must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief” as required under Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. To satisfy this standard, a plaintiff must do more than make conclusory statements. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (). Rather, the complaint “must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'” See id. (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). This plausibility determination is “a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense.” Id. at 679. When “it is clear that no relief could be granted under any set of facts that could be proved consistent with the allegations,” Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984), the complaint fails to state a claim.
Pro se complaints are held to a less stringent standard than those drafted by attorneys. Gordon v. Leeke, 574 F.2d 1147, 1151 (4th Cir. 1978). A federal court is therefore charged with liberally construing a complaint filed by a Pro se litigant to allow the development of a potentially meritorious case. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). Nonetheless, the requirement of liberal construction does not mean that the court can ignore a clear failure to allege facts that set forth a cognizable claim under Rule 8(a)(2). See Weller v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 901 F.2d 387, 39091 (4th Cir. 1990); see also Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 684 (). The Fourth Circuit has explained that “though pro se litigants cannot, of course, be expected to frame legal issues with the clarity and precision ideally evident in the work of those trained in law, neither can district courts be required to conjure up and decide issues never fairly presented to them.” Beaudett v. City of Hampton, 775 F.2d 1274, 1276 (4th Cir. 1985). Such is the case here.
A civil action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 “creates a private right of action to vindicate violations of rights privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States.” Rehberg v. Paulk, 566 U.S. 356, 361 (2012). Thus, to state a claim to relief under § 1983, the plaintiff must allege two essential elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). A person acting under color of state law can be held liable under § 1983 only if he or she was personally involved in the deprivation of the plaintiff's constitutional rights.[3] Wilcox v. Brown, 877 F.3d 161, 170 (4th Cir. 2017).
Here the crux of the Complaint is delayed and/or inadequate medical treatment with respect to Plaintiff's dental issues. Accordingly, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial