United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, Fayetteville Division
OPINION AND ORDER
P. K.
HOLMES, III CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Plaintiff,
Dionicio Garza, currently an inmate of the Washington County
Detention Center, filed this civil rights action pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff 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. § 1915A(a).
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff
contends his constitutional rights are being violated because
he is being denied adequate medical care. Plaintiff alleges
that prior to his incarceration his was “ran
over” by a car and suffered injuries to his ankle. He
maintains Dr. Karas and Nurse Hinely have: refused to follow
his private doctor's orders; refused to send him to a
specialist; have left him in severe pain; and have caused him
to suffer permanent injury to his ankle. Additionally, in one
of his attached medical requests, he mentions that he has a
hernia that has gone untreated. Plaintiff makes no
allegations in the Complaint (ECF No. 1) or his attachments
against Sheriff Helder or Corporal Mulvaney.
LEGAL
STANDARD
Under
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 fail to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted; or, (2) seek monetary relief
from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A(b).
A claim
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)).
DISCUSSION
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. To state a claim under 42
U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that the
defendant (1) acted under color of state law and (2) that he
violated a right secured by the Constitution or the laws of
the United States. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42
(1988); Dunham v. Wadley, 195 F.3d 1007, 1009 (8th
Cir. 1999).
“To
establish personal liability of supervisory defendants, the
plaintiff must allege specific facts of personal involvement
in, or direct responsibility for, a deprivation of his
constitutional rights.” Clemmons v.
Armontrout, 477 F.3d 962, 967 (8th Cir. 2007) (internal
punctuation marks and citation omitted). Here, Plaintiff has
alleged no personal involvement on the part of either Sheriff
Helder or Corporal Mulvaney. There is no basis for individual
liability against these Defendants.
Plaintiff's
official capacity claims against Sheriff Helder and Corporal
Mulvaney are the equivalent of claims against Washington
County. “Official-capacity liability under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 occurs only when a constitutional injury is
caused by ‘a government's policy or custom, whether
made by its lawmakers or by those whose edicts or acts may
fairly be said to represent official policy.'”
Grayson v. Ross, 454 F.3d 802, 810-811 (8th Cir.
2006) (quoting Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs.,
436 U.S. 658, 694 (1978)). Plaintiff has not alleged the
existence of any custom or policy of Washington County that
was a moving force behind the alleged constitutional
violations.
CONCLUSION
The
claims against Sheriff Helder and Corporal Mulvaney are
subject to dismissal because they are frivolous and fail to
state claims upon which relief may be granted. Therefore, the
claims against Sheriff Helder and Corporal Mulvaney are
...