Bowman v. Penturi et al, No. 7:2019cv00356 - Document 9 (W.D. Va. 2019)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Senior Judge Glen E. Conrad on 6/21/2019. (slt)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
cl-Ee s oFFlcEu.s.ojs'c COUR; ATRoo olc ,vA FILED IN THE UNITED STATESDISTRICT COURT JUN 2 1 2219 FO R TH E W ESTER N D ISTR ICT O F VIR G INIA Juuja c o R O A NO K E DIW SIO N BY: ., uo % , 'fv cL: v CHAD EVERETT BOW M AN., CASE NO.7:19CV00356 / Plaintiff, M EM O R AN D U M O PIN IO N W ARDEN PENTURI,c K , By: H on.G len E.C onrad Senior U nited StatesD istrictJudge D efendants. Chad EverettBowm an,a Virginia inm ate proceeding pro K ,Eled thiscivilrightsaction . ptlrsuantto 42 U.S.C.j 1983,claiming thatprison oftkials were deliberately indifferentto a hazardouscondition and failed to provide adequate medicaltreatm entforpain caused by spina bifidat Afterreview ofthe record,the courtconcludes thatthiscivilaction isappropdately dismissedwithoutprejudiceforfailtlretostateaclaim. Bowman is confined at Pocahontas CorrectionalCenter (GTCC''), a prison facility operatedbytheVirginiaDepartmentofCorrections(GçVDOC'').Heallegesthaton oraboutMay 7,2018,tlu' ee correctionaloo cers were discussing an inform alcomplaint Bowm an had filed aboutbeing denied drinking waterwhile in Githe rec-yard.'' Compl.3,ECF N o.1. Speaking so Bowman v. Penturi et al Doc. 9 thatotherinmatescouldhearthem,these officerscalled Bowman <&a snitch,a lilajrand afag.'' Ldss Bowm an assertsthatinmateswho are so labeled areputin danger ofbeing beaten,robbed, raped,oreven killed by otherinm ates. Bowman allegesthatbecause ofthe offcers'actions,he hassuffered emotionaldistressmld soughtmentalhealthtreatment. Dockets.Justia.com Bowm an also alleges that he has had spina bifda since birth and suffers f' rom nerve dam age and other complications ofthis condition. For overten yearsbefore llis incarceration, Bowm an had taken theprescription medicationsççNeurotin''and GtW ellbutren''to relievethepain f' rom thedisease. ld.at4. W hen heentered theVDOC,çGthe medicalstaffand doctorsthatare staffedin theprisonsbytheDOC,stopped gBowman'sqmedicationsand havenotasofthetime ofthiscomplaintprescribed (himlwith anyothertypeofmedications''forhissymptoms. J#-.at 4.Bom nanstatesthatheçGsufferswith severepaineveryday.''Ld.us Bowman filed his j 1983 complaint in M ay 2019. The only defendants Bowman identifes are the PCC warden,Dr.M ullins,and CarolYates. He isseeking m onetary dam ages of$100,000. II. The court is required to dism iss any action or claim tiled by a prisoner against a govem mental entity or oftk er if the court detennines that the action or claim is frivolous, malicious,orfailsto state aclaim on which reliefmay begranted. 28 U.S.C.j 1915A(b)(1). Section 1983 pennitsan aggrieved party to file a civilaction againsta person foractionstaken undercolorofstate1aw thatviolated hisconstitutionalrights. Cooperv.Sheehan,735 F.3d 153, 158(4th Cir.2013).A complaintmustbedismissedifitdoesnotallegeGGenoughfactstostatea claim to reliefthat is plausible on its face.'' BellAtl.Corp.v.Twombly,550 U.S.544,570 (2007). Bow m an's com plaint does not state a plausible claim against the defendants he has identifed. Bowm an doesnotexplain who CarolYates is,nordoeshe describe any action that Y ates,the w arden,orthe doctor hastaken,personally,thatviolated Bow m an's rights or harm ed 2 him in any way. Bowm an apprently seeksto hold the warden vicariously liable forthe actions of his subordinates at PCC. Vicarious liability for supervisory officials, also lcnown as respondeatsuperior,doesnotapplyin j 1983cases,however.See,e.g.,Virmedgev.Gibbs,550 F.2d 926,928 (4th Cir.1977)(finding thattmder j 1983,Gtliability willonly lie where itis. afsnnatively shown that the oftk ial charged acted personally in the deprivation of the plaintiftl'sj rights''). M oreover,the warden and other nonmedicalpersonnelatPCC could rightly rely on the m edicalexpertise of Bowm an's treating physician atPCC to determine the appropriatecotlrse ofmedicalcare forllisspinabifdapain and othercomplications. SeeShnkka v.Smith,71F.3d 162,167(4thCir.1995)(citationomitted). Only (tldjeliberateindifferencetoaninmate'sseriousmedicalneedsconstitutescrueland tmusualpunishmenttmdertheEighth Amendment.''Jackson v.Lizhtsey,775F.3d 170,178(4th Cir.2014). Thus,Bowman cnnnotstatea j1983 claim againstthedoctororany othermedical staff m ember without explaining in the complaint when and how each individual knew of Bowm an's m edicalneeds and whatactions each ofthem took orfailed to take in response to those needs. Bowman's complaint does notprovide any inform ation abouthow or when his defendants interacted with llim ,when and whatthey lenrned about his m edicalneeds,orhow they,personally,caused violationsofhisconstitutionalrights. Thus,Bowman hasnotstated any actionablej1983claim againstthem.lVinnedce,550F.2dat928. Forthe stated reasons,the courtconcludes thatBom nan's subm issions do notstate any . claim upon which reliefcould be granted againstthe defendants he has sued. Therefore,the 1Bowman'scomplaintisalso inconsistentwiththeFéderalRulesofCivilProceduregoverningjoinderof claimsin onelawsuit. SeeFed.R.Civ.P.18,20.Hisclaimsthatofticers'comm entsputhim in dangeraretotally tmrelatyd to hisclaims abouthis medicalcare and concern separate setsofpeople. Thus,ifBowman choosesto reflehistwo claims,hemustraise them in two separate lawsuitsand provide specific detailsaboutactions each defendanttook in violation ofhisrightsand when and where. Bom nan isalso advisedthatacivilcomolaintitself muststatehisclaimsandthefactssupporting hisclaims,SeeFed.R.Civ.P.8,10.Hecannotexpectthedefendants tocombthrough attachedexhibitstobuild thesequenceofrelevantfacts,ashehasdonehere. 3 courtwillsummarily dismisstheaction withoutprejudiceunderj 1915A(b)(1). An appropriate orderwillenterthis day. Such a dism issalleavesBowman freeto refilehisclaim sin a new and separatecivilaction ifhecan correctthedeficienciesdescribedinthisopinion andsubjecttothe appliiablestamteoflimitations. The Clerk is directed to send copies ofthis mem orandum opinion and accom panying orderto plaintiff. ENTER: This D ? day ofJune, 2019. SeniorUnited StatesDistrictJudge 4
]]>
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.
