Edwards v. Scarberry et al, No. 7:2019cv00288 - Document 5 (W.D. Va. 2019)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Senior Judge Glen E. Conrad on 6/20/2019. (slt)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
cLEM s OFFICE U.S.DIST.C'OURS AT ROANOKE,VA FILED IN TH E U NITED STATE S D ISTR ICT C O U R T FO R TH E W E STER N D IST RIC T O F W R G IN IA R O A N O K E D IV ISIO N JUN 21 2219 . BY J; ULI A ,DUD , yE'RK N TY M ICH AEL D ER RIC K ED W A R D S, R CA SE N O .7:19CV 00288 Plaintiff, M EM O M N DU M O PIN IO N V. FOOD SERW CE DIRECTOR P.SCARRERRY,c K , By: H on.G len E .Conrad Senior U nited StatesD istrictJudge D efendants. PlaintiffM ichaelDerrick Edwards,aVirginiainmateproceedingproK ,hasfiledtM scivil rightsaction,ptlrsuantto42U.S.C.j 1983,allegingthatpdsonofficialsretaliatedagainsthim for filinggrievances.Afterareview ofEdwards'subm issions,thecourtcopcludesthathiscom plaint m ustbesllmm arily dism issed. EdwardsisconfinedatRedOnion StatePdson(G1Red Onion''),afacility operated bythe VirginiaDepartmentofCorrections(G 1VDOC'').Heallegesthefollowing sequenceofeventsin . supportofhisj1983claims.OnFebruary27,2019,acoaectionaloflkerservedEdwardsalunch tray. Edwardsallegesthatthem ain dish sm elled andtasted likeithad been tainted with cleaning fluid.'W hen he com plained,the officerprovided Mm with areplacementt' ray. Edwardsthought them ain dish on thattray also smelled and tasted ofcleaning solution. Thebuilding lieutenant contacted food serdce. A few minuteslater,food service supervisor Stillcam eto Edwards'cell with athird lunch tray.Edwardstoldherthatthem ain cotlrsestillsm elled andtasted likecleaning Edwards v. Scarberry et al Doc. 5 solution.StillsaidshewouldnotgiveEdwardsûtanything else,''toldhim Githat'swhat(he)getlsl when ghe)writegs)food serviceup,''andwalkedaway.Compl.2,ECFNo.1.Edwardsreceived no otherm ealtm tildinner. Dockets.Justia.com Shortly afterltm ch on February27,2019,Edwardsfiled an Em ergency Grievance,stating thathe Gtwasfeeling nausea and stom ach painsdueto possiblefood poisorling om the clenning solution''inthemaindishofhislunchtray.J. 1J.,at3.AnofficerreturnedtheEmergencyGrievance to Edwards around 8:00 p.m . Ntlrse Yates had m itten a response on the form ,stating that Edwards'complaint did not meetthe definition of a m edicalem ergency. The nextm orning, Edwardsasked Yateswhy shehad deniedhim medicalcarewhenhehad possiblefood poisoning. YatessaidthatifEdwardsççwouldofneverwroteherup (he)wouldofgottenmedicaltreatment'' ld M . Edwards sues Still,food service director Scarberry,and Yates. He contendsthatthese defendantsdeprived him ofadequatefoodand medicalcare,in violation ofhisEighth Am endm ent dghts,and/orretaliated againsthim forexercising hisFirstAm endmentdghtby sling grievances. Asrelief,heseeksmonetary,declaratory,andinjlmctiverelief. II. Thecourtm ay sllm madly dismissacaseItbroughtwithrespecttoprison conditions...by aprisonerconfinedinanyjail,prison,orothercorrectionalfacilityifthecourtissatisfiedthatthe actioriisivolous,malicious,(or)failsto stateaclaim upon which reliefcan be granted.'' 42 U.S.C.j 1997e(c)(1). Section 1983 permitsan aggrieved party to file a civilaction againsta person foractionstaken undercolorofstate 1aw thatviolated hisconstitutionalrights. Cooperv. Sheehan,735F.3d 153,158(4thCir.2013). GCIAjplaintiffmustpleadthateach Government-ofticialdefendant,through theoffkial's own individual actions,has violated the Constitution.'' Ashcroftv.Iqbal,556 U.S.662,676 (2009).Supervisoryofficialsmaynotbeheldautomaticallyliableforthetmconstitutionalconduct oftheirsubordinates.JZ EdwardsfailstodescribeanyactionwhatsoeverthatdefendantScarben' y 2 took in violation ofilisconstitutionalrights.Accordingly,hisclaim sagainstthisdefendantm ust besum madly dism issed. Edwards'allegationsalso failto state any claim underthe Eighth Am endmentabouthis allegedly tainted m eal. The Eighth Am endm ent protects prisoners from cruel and tmusual condisions.Rhodesv.Chapman,452U.S.337,347(1981).Ontheotherhand,livingconditions in prison are notintended to be comfortable. ET O the extentthatsuch conditionsare restrictive and even harsh,they are partofthepenalty thatcrim inaloffenderspay fortheiroffensesagainst society.'' J#= To state a claim,Edwardsmustshow thathe suffered aseriousinjury from the allegedlyunsafecondition.Stricklerv.W aters,989F.2d1375,1380-1381(4thCir.1993).M erely m issing onem ealbecausehe did notlike thetaste ofone dish simply doesnotrisetothe levelof aconstitutionaldeprivation.See,e.c.,W llitev.Grecory,1F.3d267,269(4thCir.1993)(affirming districtcourt'sdism issalasfrivolousinmate'sclaim thathereceivedonlytwomealsperday during weekçnds,becauseinmateallegednosignificantresultinginjttlry);Hamm v.DeKalb Cotmty,774 F.2d 1567,1575(11th Cir.1985)(tThefactthatthefoodoccasionallycontainsforeignobjectsor sometimesisserved cold,whileunpleasant,doesnotamountto aconstitutionaldeprivation.'); Browhv.M athena,CaseNo.7:10CV00192 (W .D.Va.M ay 14,2010)(W ilson,J.)(disrnissing inmate'sclaim thathemissed onedirmermeal),affirmed,No.10-6772 (4th Cir.Aug.26,2010); Islnm v.Jackson,782F.Supp.1111,1114(E.D.Va.1992)(findingthatinmatemissingonemeal asisolatedeventdidnotstateEighthAmendmentviolation). Edw ards' com plaint is sim ilarly deficient concerning his m edical claim . prison official'sdeliberateindifferenceto aninm ate'sseriousmedicalneedsconstitutescrueland tmusual ptmijhmenttmdertheEighth Amendment.'' Jackson v.Lightsey,775 F.3d 170,178 (4th Cir. 2014)(citing Estelle v.Gnmble,429 U.S.97,104 (1976)). An inmate alleging a deliberate 3 indifferenceclaim mustestablishthathismedicalconditionwasobjectivelyserious thatis,Ctone thathasbeen diagnosed by aphysician asm andating treatm entorone thatisso obviousthateven a1ayperson would easilyrecognizethenecessityforadoctor'sattention.''lkov.Sk eve,535F.3d 225,241(4th Cir.2008)(intemalquotation marksomitted). Edwardsmakesno such showing here. His reportof stom ach pain and nausea and his self-serving diagnosis of possible food . poisoning arenotsufficientto stateaclaim thathisconditionrosetothelevelofaseriousm edical need forthe em ergency m edicalcarehe requested. M oreover,toprevailon an Eighth Am endm entclaim ,the inmate mustalso show thatthe defendantsubjectivelyknew ofanddisregardedanexcessiverisktotheinmate'shealthorsafety. Jackson,775F.3dat178(citingFarmerv.Brerman,511U.S.825,837(1994:.Again,Edwards m akesno such showing.Hem entioned onlypossiblefoodpoisoning inhisEm ergency Grievance. M oreover,thenursedid notrefuse care- shem erely fotmd noneed forem ergency treatm ent.An inmaiecnnnotprovedeliberateindifferencemerely by stating lzispersonaldisagreementwith a medicalprofessionalonGGlqjuestionsofmedicaljudgment''whichthecourtcannotsecond-guess ina j1983action.Russellv.Sheffer,528F.2d 318,319(4th Cir.1975).Furthennore,Edwards hasnotalleged thathisabdom inaldiscomfortcontinuedinto thenextday oreverrequiredm edical treatm entto subside. The courtwillsllm marily dism issEdwards'Eighth Amendmentclaim s. Edwards also characterizes the defendants' actions as retaliation for his filing of grievances,in violation oftheFirstAm endm ent. (Tqo stateacolorableretaliation claim underSection 1983,aplaintiffmustallege that(1)heengagedin protected FirstAmendmentactivity,(2)thedefendanttook someactionthatadverselyaffectedhisFirstAmendmentrights,and(3)therewas acausalrelationsllip between hisprotected activity and the defendant'sconduct. Martin v.Duffv,858 F.3d 239,249 (4th Cir.2017),cert.denied,138 S.Ct.738,(2018). ETor purposesofa FirstAmendm entretaliation claim tmderSection 1983,aplaintiffsuffersadverse 4 action ifthe defendant's allegedly retaliatory conduct would likely deter a person of ordinary firmnessfrom theexerciseofFirstAmendmentrights.''Ld= Edwards'retaliation claim sreston alleged com mentsfrom defendantsthathe could have had whathewanted ifhe had only refrained from m iting complaints.Even assuming thatthese com mentsweremade,thecourtcnnnotfind thatm issing onesupperm ealorwaiting untilm om ing to seek treatm ent of a stom ach ailment constitute such adversity that a GGperson of ordinary finnness''wouldbedeterred bytheseeventsfm m flingfutuzegrievancesorlawsuits.J#a. Forthestatedreasons,thecourtissatisfiedthatEdwards'j1983complaintfailstostatea claim upon wllich relief can be granted. Therefore,on that grotm d,the courtwillsllmm arily dismisstMsaction withoutprejudice,pursuantto j 1997e(c)(1). Dismissalwithoutprejudice leaves Edwards f' ree to refle llis claims in a new and separate lawsuit if he can correct the detk ienciesdescribed in thisOpinion. TheClerk isdirectedto send copiesofthism em orandl'm opinion andaccom panyingorder to plaintiff. ENTER A : This ;# day ofJune,2019. SeniorUnited StatesDistrictJudge
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
