United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, Fayetteville Division
OPINION AND ORDER
HOLMES, III CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Brandon Waters, filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§1983. He proceeds pro se and in forma
pauperis. The case is before the Court for preservice
screening under the provisions of the Prison Litigation
Reform Act (PLRA). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the
Court has the obligation to screen any complaint in which a
prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer
or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. §
to the allegations of the complaint (Doc. 1) and supplement
(Doc. 6), Plaintiff was booked into the Washington County
Detention Center (WCDC) on April 14, 2017. He advised the
booking officer that he had an appointment with a pain
management doctor on April 24, 2017, about having a nerve
block done because of pain and other ongoing issues he had
from a January 2017 hernia repair surgery. His surgeon
indicated there was a possibility he would have to remove the
mesh used during the hernia surgery. Plaintiff alleges the
mesh was causing nerve damage and pain and swelling on the
left side of his body.
time, Plaintiff states his left knee was swollen. Plaintiff
indicates he had previously injured his knee and believed he
had re-injured it. When Plaintiff did see Dr. Karas about his
knee, he merely prescribed ice and told Plaintiff to wrap the
knee up. Plaintiff alleges this is not working. Plaintiff
states his knee needs to be checked out to see if he tore
something in it.
week of May 15, 2017, Plaintiff alleges he was told he would
have the nerve block done. However, two weeks later,
Plaintiff alleges he was told his doctor would not see any
detainees. He was told they would have to locate another pain
management doctor to perform the nerve block.
alleges he stays in pain 24/7 and that the mat he has for
sleeping is so thin it causes his back to hurt. When he is
lying on his back, Plaintiff states he can feel the mesh. His
requests to be taken to the emergency room have been denied.
He also states that his requests for something to be done to
help him with the pain were ignored.
also had a problem with the nail on his big toe bleeding. He
alleges it was coming off and would get caught on his bedding
which was painful. When an officer came to look at it,
Plaintiff states it was clear the officer did not care about
names Defendants in both their individual and official
capacities. As relief, Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages
and medical treatment.
the PLRA, the Court is obligated to screen the case prior to
service of process being issued. The Court must dismiss a
complaint, or any portion of it, if it contains claims that:
(1) are frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted; or, (2) seeks monetary relief
from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C.
is frivolous if “it lacks an arguable basis either in
law or fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S.
319, 325 (1989). A claim fails to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted if it does not allege “enough
facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). “In evaluating
whether a pro se plaintiff has asserted sufficient
facts to state a claim, we hold ‘a pro se
complaint, however inartfully pleaded ... to less stringent
standards than formal pleadings drafted by
lawyers.'” Jackson v. Nixon, 747 F.3d 537,
541 (8th Cir. 2014) (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551
U.S. 89, 94 (2007)).
claims against Sheriff Helder in his individual capacity are
subject to dismissal. Plaintiff's claims against Sheriff
Helder are based on his being in charge of the jail. A claim
of deprivation of a constitutional right cannot be based on a
respondeat superior theory of liability. See
Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 654,
694 (1978). “[A] supervisor is not vicariously liable
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for an employee's
unconstitutional activity.” White v. Holmes,
21 F.3d 277, 280 (8th Cir. 1994); see also Whitson v.
Stone County Jail, 602 F.3d 920, 928 (8th Cir. 2010)
(“In a § 1983 case, an official is only liable for
his own misconduct and is not accountable for the misdeeds of
his agents under a theory such as respondeat superior or
supervisor liability”) (internal quotations ...