United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, Texarkana Division
ORDER
Susan
O. Hickey Chief United States District Judge
This is
a civil rights action filed by Plaintiff, Douglas Ray Winter,
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.
I.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff
filed his Complaint on September 11, 2019. (ECF No. 1). His
application to proceed in forma pauperis was granted
the same day. (ECF No. 3). Plaintiff is currently
incarcerated in the Miller County Detention Center
(“MCDC”). A review of Plaintiff's complaint
revealed that Plaintiff did not specifically state what each
named defendant did or failed to do that allegedly violated
his constitutional rights and Plaintiff did not indicate what
injuries he suffered. Consequently, the Court ordered
Plaintiff to file an Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 6). On
September 25, 2019, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint
naming as Defendants Jackie Runion, Sheriff of Miller County,
Arkansas; Warden Walker of the MCDC; Correctional Officer
Henderson of the MCDC; and Nurse Chelsea, who is employed by
Southern Health Partners, Inc., the third party medical
provider at the MCDC. (ECF No. 7). Plaintiff is seeking
compensatory and punitive damages and sues all Defendants in
both their individual and official capacities.
Plaintiff
describes his first claim as “medical neglect”
and identifies Defendants Runion, Walker, and Chelsea as the
responsible parties. He states that on or about June 21,
2019, “upon explaining to Nurse Chelsea that I had
previously taken preventive medication for T.B. at that time
she forced me to take the T.B. test anyway. I was distressed
for my health.” (ECF No. 7, p. 4). He describes his
official capacity claim under Claim One as “medical
neglect.” (ECF No. 7, p. 5.)
Plaintiff
describes his second claim as “unprofessional
conduct” and identifies Defendants Runion, Walker, and
Henderson as being involved. He states that “CO
Henderson harassed my fiancé and I and caused me
emotional distress.” (ECF No. 7, p. 5). He describes
his official capacity claim under Claim Two as “conduct
unbecoming of an officer.” Id. at p. 6.
Plaintiff
describes his third claim as “Health and Safety
Violations” and identifies Defendants Runion and Walter
as the responsible parties. He states that on or about June
26, 2019, “a storm blew out power to facility at which
time for approximately 6 to 8 hours there was no emergency
power or lights. I was in fear for my life and safety.”
(ECF No. 7, p. 6). He describes his official capacity claim
as “failing to provide a safe environment.”
Id. at p. 7.
II.
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)).
However, even a pro se Plaintiff must allege
specific facts sufficient to support a claim. Martin v.
Sargent, 780 F.2d 1334, 1337 (8th Cir. 1985).
Mere
conclusory allegations with no supporting factual averments
are insufficient to state a claim upon which relief can be
based. Allen v. Purkett, 5 F.3d 1151, 1153 (8th Cir.
1993); see also Stone v. Harry, 364 F.3d 912, 914
(8th Cir. 2004). “[A] pro se plaintiff requires no
special legal training to recount the facts surrounding his
alleged injury, and he must provide such facts if the court
is to determine whether he makes out a claim on which relief
can be granted.” Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d
1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991) (citations omitted).
III.
ANALYSIS
A.
Claim One - Right to Refuse Medical Treatment
Plaintiff
claims Defendants Runion, Walker, and Nurse Chelsea medically
neglected him when Nurse Chelsea “forced”
Plaintiff to take a tuberculosis (“TB”) test even
though he had previously taken preventive medication for the
disease. Although Plaintiff describes his claim as one for
medical neglect, the Court ...