United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, Fayetteville Division
TONY JORDAN, JR. PLAINTIFF
KARAS HEALTH CARE; JANE DOE NURSE; GUARD TYRONE CURTIS; and CORPORAL CARTER DEFENDANTS
OPINION AND ORDER
HOLMES, III CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE.
Tony Jordan, Jr. filed this civil rights case pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff proceeds pro se and in forma
pauperis. He is incarcerated in the Washington County
Detention Center in Fayetteville, Arkansas.
the Court is a motion to dismiss (Doc. 9) filed by Separate
Defendants Guard Tyrone Curtis and Corporal Chris Carter (the
Washington County Defendants). Plaintiff has not responded to
9, 2016, at approximately 7:25 p.m., Plaintiff alleges he was
given six or seven pills instead of his usual two or three.
Plaintiff states that the six or seven pills were not
prescribed to him and that he began feeling “real
funny.” He indicates his heart was pounding, his eye
was twitching, he felt off balance, and he was weak. He
asserts he was not given any of his correct medication. At
7:51, Plaintiff states he went back out to see the nurse
about having received the wrong medication. Plaintiff alleges
that the nurse admitted she had given the Plaintiff the wrong
medication. The nurse took Plaintiff's blood pressure
which was 150/100. Plaintiff alleges this was very high but
they refused to get him “better help.” Instead,
Plaintiff was told to go lay down and sleep it off. Plaintiff
alleges he told them that he suffered from high blood
pressure and an enlarged heart. Plaintiff testified that
Guard Curtis and Corporal Carter were present when he was
seeking help. Plaintiff alleges they did nothing to get him
help even though he asked over and over to go to the
hospital. Plaintiff states he was not taken seriously.
alleges the Defendants used excessive force when they were
“pointing fingers at [him] blaming [him] for taking the
pills.” He asserts the Defendants were being rude,
loud, and unprofessional. Plaintiff states Guard Curtis
demanded that he lay down and not say anything. Plaintiff
alleges Corporal Carter blamed him instead of the nurse for
the mess up.
8(a) contains the general pleading rules and requires a
complaint to present “a short and plain statement of
the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to
relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). “In order to meet
this standard, and survive a motion to dismiss under Rule
12(b)(6), ‘a complaint must contain sufficient factual
matter, accepted as true, to state a claim for relief that is
plausible on its face.'” Braden v. Wal-Mart
Stores, Inc., 588 F.3d 585, 594 (8th Cir. 2009)
(quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678
plausibility standard requires a plaintiff to show at the
pleading stage that success on the merits is more than a
‘sheer possibility.'” Braden, 588
F.3d at 594 (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678). The
standard does “not impose a probability requirement at
the pleading stage; it simply calls for enough fact to raise
a reasonable expectation, ” or reasonable inference,
that the “defendant is liable for the misconduct
alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; see also
Stone v. Harry, 364 F.3d 912, 914 (8th Cir. 2004) (While
pro se complaints are liberally construed, they must allege
sufficient facts to support the claims.).
Washington County Defendants argue they are entitled to
dismissal because their alleged conduct does not give rise to
a claim. Section 1983 provides a federal cause of action for
the deprivation, under color of law, of a citizen's
“rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the
Constitution and laws” of the United States. In order
to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, plaintiff must
allege that the defendant acted under color of state law and
that he violated a right secured by the Constitution.
West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42 (1988); Dunham v.
Wadley, 195 F.3d 1007, 1009 (8th Cir.1999). The
deprivation must be intentional; mere negligence will not
suffice to state a claim for deprivation of a constitutional
right under § 1983. Daniels v. Williams, 474
U.S. 327 (1986); Davidson v. Cannon, 474 U.S. 344
Denial of Medical Care
treatment a prisoner receives in prison and the conditions
under which he is confined are subject to scrutiny under the
Eighth Amendment.” Helling v. McKinney, 509
U.S. 25, 31 (1993). To prevail on a denial of medical care
claim, a plaintiff must show: (1) the existence of an
objectively serious medical need, (2) that the defendants
knew of and deliberately disregarded. Vaughn v.
Gray, 557 F.3d 904, 908-09 (8th Cir. 2009).
under section 1983 requires a causal link to, and direct
responsibility for, the deprivation of rights.”
Clemmons v. Armontrout, 477 F.3d 962, 967 (8th Cir.
2007) (quoting Mayorga v. Missouri, 442 F.3d 1128,
1132 (8th Cir. 2006)); see also Keeper v. King, 130
F.3d 1309, 1314 (8th Cir. 1997) (no evidence that the
defendants were doctors or were personally involved in making
medical decisions about treatment); Mark v. Nix, 983
F.2d 138, 139-40 (8th Cir. 1993) (section 1983 liability
requires some personal involvement or responsibility). Here,
neither of the Washington County Defendants were medical
personnel. Plaintiff was being seen by jail medical staff,
and the Washington County Defendants are not liable for the
jail medical staff's treatment decisions. Camberos v.
Branstad, 73 F.3d 174, 176 (8th Cir. 1995)
(“[B]ecause Burt and Ault lacked medical expertise,
they cannot be liable for the medical staff's diagnostic
decision not to refer ...