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 Charles Arron
Williams pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff
proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis. (ECF
Nos. 1, 2, 3). The case is before the Court for preservice
screening under the provisions of the Prison Litigation
Reform Act (“PLRA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
Pursuant to the PLRA, the Court has the obligation to screen
any complaint in which a prisoner seeks redress from a
governmental entity, officer, or employee.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff
filed his complaint on October 15, 2019. (ECF No. 1). That
same day, the Court granted Plaintiff's motion for leave
to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 3). The Court
also entered an order directing Plaintiff to file an amended
complaint by November 5, 2019. (ECF No. 3). The Court's
order further directed the Clerk of Court to mail Plaintiff a
court-approved section 1983 form to use for filing the
amended complaint and stated that Plaintiff's amended
complaint should include:
short, plain statements telling the Court: the constitutional
right Plaintiff believes was violated; the name of the
Defendant who violated the right; exactly what the Defendant
did or failed to do; how the action or inaction of that
Defendant is connected to the violation of Plaintiff's
constitutional rights; and what specific injury Plaintiff
suffered because of the misconduct of that Defendant. See
Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 371-72, 377 (1976).
Plaintiff must repeat this process for each person he has
named as a Defendant. Plaintiff is CAUTIONED that he must
affirmatively link the conduct of each named Defendant with
the specific injury he suffered. If he fails to do so, the
allegations against that Defendant will be dismissed for
failure to state a claim.
Id.
Plaintiff's
Amended Complaint was filed on November 1, 2019. (ECF No.
10). Plaintiff lists the following Defendants: Sheriff
Runyon, Miller County; Warden Walker, Miller County Detention
Center (“MCDC”); Captain Adams, MCDC; Lt. Miller,
MCDC; Sgt. Griffie, MCDC; Corp. Burns, MCDC; Corp. Henderson,
MCDC; Sgt. Guthrie, MCDC; Cpl. Moore, MCDC; Cpl. Walker,
MCDC; Cpl. Webb, MCDC; Cpl. Smith, MCDC; Sgt. Rodgers, MCDC;
C.O. Studder, MCDC; C.O. Fant, MCDC; C.O. Ferrel, MCDC; C.O.
Jones, MCDC; C.O. Burns, MCDC; C.O. Golden, MCDC; C.O.
Lowbig, MCDC; Nurse King, MCDC Medical Staff; Nurse Redfearn,
MCDC Medical Staff; Nurse Adams, MCDC Medical Staff; and,
Nurse Chelsie, MCDC Medical Staff.
Plaintiff's
amended complaint mentions an “incident” which
occurred on April 9, 2019. (ECF No. 10). Although, Plaintiff
does not specifically state what occurred during the
“incident, ” he states that no officers were
present or in the watch tower at the time. Id. The
amended complaint further asserts that Plaintiff was injured
as a result of the “incident, ” and Plaintiff
states that after the “incident” he “was
threatened by the Inmates who physically assaulted [him] not
to expose them.” Id. The Court, therefore,
assumes the “incident” involved some sort of
altercation with other inmates.
Plaintiff
states that his first claim is for “unprofessional
conduct, safety and health concerns/ medical concerns,
” with the date of occurrence reportedly April 9, 2019.
(ECF No. 10). Specifically, Plaintiff states that he believes
his “equal protection rights were violated by officers
who were supposed to be [i]n the watch tower.”
Id. Plaintiff states that there were no officers
present in the watch tower at the time of the incident; and,
because he is not sure which officers were supposed to be in
the tower at the time of the incident, his list of Defendants
“consist[s] of everyone who could have been on duty on
the date of 04-09-19.” (ECF No. 10). Plaintiff further
states specifically that Lt. Miller, C.O. Golden, and Sgt.
Griffie “came to retrieve [him] after the
incident.” Id. Plaintiff states that after the
incident he “laid [in his] rack for days after the
[i]ncident before Miller County Officers finally observed
three days after the [i]ncident occurred that I was
injured.” Id. Plaintiff states: “I was
threatened by the Inmates who physically assaulted me not to
expose them. I was barely able to move or function.”
Id. Plaintiff states “I [b]elieve that my
equal protection rights were violated by officers who were
supposed to be in the watchtower, we are all entitled to safe
& clean environment.” Id. Plaintiff states
that he also had serious medical concerns that were not
addressed by the Miller County Officers when they
“finally observed the incident three days after it
occurred.” Id. Plaintiff states that the
officers placed him “in confinement before addressing
medical concerns.” Id. Plaintiff states that
he is suing the Defendants in both their official and
individual capacities and states the following when asked to
describe the custom or policy he believes caused the
constitutional violation: “U.S. Constitutional
Amendment 8, cruel and unusual punishment inflicted (Medical
Staff Neglect).” Id.
With
respect to Plaintiff's second claim, he states he
believes that his Eighth Amendment rights were violated by
Nurse Redfearn “for medical staff neglect and the
Miller County Officers who took me to confinement before
medical after the incident, which is cruel and unusual
punishment.” (ECF No. 10). Plaintiff states that the
only officers he remembers are Lt. Miller, C.O. Golden, and
Sgt. Griffie. (ECF No. 10). With respect to his claims
against medical staff, Plaintiff additionally names Nurse
King, Nurse Adams, and Nurse Chelsie as Defendants. He states
that he included the medical team “because for three
days I was laying in my rack with severe injuries. I was
supposed to be taking meds, and they did not call my name or
ask me to sign a refusal. I did not get up to take my meds
because I could barely move/function and because I was
threatened by my attackers not to expose them.”
Id. Again, Plaintiff states “when Miller
County officers finally observed the incident 3 days later, I
was took to confinement before given medical treatment, and
when I was given medical treatment finally by Nurse Redfearn
I was not examined properly. She only asked me if my head
hurt as she touched it.” Plaintiff states that he
listed all the medical team because “I'm not sure
if they were on duty and passing out meds the 3 days I was
laid up injured and did not call my name or even give me a
refusal to sign.” (ECF No. 10).
APPLICABLE
LAW
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) seeks 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 Atl. 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
Eric ...