Shamblin v. West Virginia Regional Jail Authority et al, No. 3:2018cv00243 - Document 4 (S.D.W. Va. 2018)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER directing the Plaintiff to pay the filing fee of $400 or submit to the Court an amended Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees and Costs; further directing Plaintiff to amend his complaint within forty-fiv e (45) days and cure the deficiencies in the pleading as indicated herein; failure to amend the complaint as ordered may result in a recommendation that the complaint be dismissed; Plaintiff's 1 Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees and Costs shall be held in abeyance pending initial review of Plaintiff's amended complaint or pending other further proceedings in this case. Signed by Magistrate Judge Cheryl A. Eifert on 2/8/2018. (cc: Plaintiff) (jsa)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Shamblin v. West Virginia Regional Jail Authority et al Doc. 4 IN TH E U N ITED STATES D ISTRICT COU RT FOR TH E SOU TH ERN D ISTRICT OF W EST VIRGIN IA H U N TIN GTON D IVISION ROBERT SH AMBLIN , Plain tiff, v. Cas e N o . 3 :18 -cv-0 0 2 4 3 W EST VIRGIN IA REGION AL JAIL AU TH ORITY; CORRECTION AL OFFICER MORRISON ; CORRECTION AL OFFICER YORK; CORRECTION AL OFFICER H ORN ER, D e fe n d an ts . MEMORAN D U M OPIN ION AN D ORD ER Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed Without Prepaym ent of Fees and Costs, (ECF No. 1), and Plaintiff’s Com plaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, (ECF No. 2). The undersigned notes that Plaintiff’s Application is incom plete. Before the Application can be accepted for review, Plaintiff m ust fill out the first page and subm it it to the Clerk of Court. For that reason, Plaintiff is hereby ORD ERED to pay the filing fee of $ 40 0 , or subm it to the Court an am ended Application to Proceed Without Prepaym ent of Fees and Costs, which includes the com pleted first page of the form . Plain tiff is n o tifie d that failure to pay the fee or subm it the application as instructed within th irty ( 3 0 ) d a ys of the date of this Order shall result in a recom m endation that the com plaint be dism issed. In keeping with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the undersigned has conducted a 1 Dockets.Justia.com prelim inary review of Plaintiff’s com plaint to determ ine if the action is frivolous, fails to state a claim upon which relief m ay be granted, or seeks m onetary relief from a defendant who is im m une from such relief. Although pro se com plaints, such as the one filed in this case, m ust be liberally construed to allow the developm ent of potentially m eritorious claim s, the court m ay not rewrite the pleading to include claim s that were never presented, Parker v. Cham pion, 148 F.3d 1219, 1222 (10 th Cir. 1998), develop the plaintiff’s legal theories for him , Sm all v. Endicott, 998 F.2d 411, 417-18 (7th Cir. 1993), or “conjure up questions never squarely presented” to the court. Beaudett v. City of Ham pton, 775 F.2d 1274, 1278 (4th Cir. 1985). At the sam e tim e, to achieve justice, the court m ay allow a pro se plaintiff the opportunity to am end his com plaint in order to correct deficiencies in the pleading. Gordon v. Leeke, 574 F.2d 1147, 1151 (4th Cir. 1978). Plaintiff alleges that he fell off the loading dock at the Western Regional J ail on May 11, 20 16, injuring his back and foot. He was taken to the m edical unit and was told that he was fine. Plaintiff’s back continued to hurt, and he com plained daily to the J ail staff. Days later, Plaintiff was taken to St. Mary’s Medical Center for a MRI. Plaintiff asks to be com pensated for pain, suffering, m ental anguish, anxiety, em otional distress, feelings of worthlessness, and being unable to work. (ECF No. 2). As currently written, Plaintiff’s com plaint fails to state a claim that can withstand initial review. The Eighth Am endm ent to the United States Constitution requires the State to provide its prison inm ates with basic m edical care. Estelle v. Gam ble, 429 U.S. 97, 10 3, 97 S.Ct. 285, 50 L.Ed.2d 251 (1976). A prison official violates this constitutional guarantee when he responds to a prisoner’s serious m edical need with deliberate indifference. Estelle, 429 U.S. at 10 4; Farm er v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834, 114 S.Ct. 1970 , 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994). Therefore, to state a cognizable Eighth Am endm ent claim , an inm ate 2 m ust m eet two prongs, one objective and one subjective. First, the inm ate m ust dem onstrate the existence of a m edical condition or need that is objectively serious. Estelle, 429 U.S. at 10 4. Second, the inm ate m ust show that the official subjectively knew of, but disregarded, “an excessive risk to inm ate health or safety.” Farm er v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837, 114 S.Ct. 1970 , 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994). A prison official is not liable under the Eighth Am endm ent if a reasonable response is m ade, “even if the harm ultim ately [is] not averted.” Odom v. South Carolina DOC, 349 F.3d 765, 770 (4th Cir. 20 0 3) (citing Farm er, 511 U.S. at 844). To establish that a prison official’s actions constitute deliberate indifference to a serious m edical need, “the treatm ent m ust be so grossly incom petent, inadequate or excessive as to shock the conscience or to be intolerable to fundam ental fairness.” Miltier v. Beorn, 896 F.2d 848, 851 (4th Cir. 1990 ). Accordingly, Plaintiff m ust set forth facts in his com plaint that m eet the standard of an Eighth Am endm ent violation. A m ere difference of opinion about whether m edical care is needed is usually insufficient to m aintain a valid cause of action. Therefore, when and if Plaintiff am ends his com plaint to assert an Eighth Am endm ent claim , he should bear these standards in m ind. In addition to the legal principles set forth above, Plaintiff’s claim is governed by the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e). The PLRA expressly prohibits the filing of civil actions by prisoners “confined in a jail, prison, or other correctional facility, for m ental or em otional injury suffered while in custody w ith o u t a p rio r s h o w in g o f p h ys ical in ju ry.” (em phasis added). Although the PLRA does not define “physical injury” and the Fourth Circuit has not provided a definition, other courts have held that the “physical injury” referenced by the Act need not be significant, but it m ust be m ore than de m inim is. See, e.g., Flanory v. Bonn, 60 4 F.3d 249, 254 (6th Cir. 20 10 ); Mitchell v. Brow n & W illiam son Tobacco Corp., 294 F.3d 130 9, 1312– 13 (11th Cir. 3 20 0 2); Siglar v. Hightow er, 112 F.3d 191 (5th Cir. 1997); Zehner v. Trigg, 952 F.Supp. 1318 (S.D. Ind. 1997). In addition, “[a] plaintiff seeking com pensatory dam ages for em otional distress cannot rely on conclusory statem ents that the plaintiff suffered em otional distress [or] the m ere fact that a constitutional violation occurred, but, rather, the testim ony m ust establish that the plaintiff suffered dem onstrable em otional distress, which m ust be sufficiently articulated.” Knussm an v. Mary land, 272 F.3d 625, 640 (4th Cir. 20 0 1), quoting Price v. City of Charlotte, 93 F.3d 1241, 1254 (4th Cir. 1996) (internal quotation m arks om itted). In light of the governing standards and principles, Plaintiff m ust am end his com plaint in order for the undersigned to com plete a prelim inary review of the m erits and rule on the m otion to proceed in form a pauperis. Without such an am endm ent, Plaintiff’s com plaint will be subject to dism issal. Therefore, Plaintiff is ORD ERED to am end his com plaint within fo rty-five ( 4 5) d ays and cure the following deficiencies in pleading as indicated below: 1. Plaintiff m ust set forth a factual basis upon which the Court can conclude that the defendants were deliberately indifferent to a serious m edical need. Accordingly, Plaintiff m ust include factual allegations setting forth the nature of his serious m edical need and describing how each individual defendant was m ade aware of the need, but deliberately ignored it. 3. Plaintiff m ust identify the nature of the physical and em otional injuries he claim s to have suffered as a result of the alleged wrongdoing. At a m inim um , Plaintiff m ust include in the com plaint the injuries to his back and foot that were diagnosed at St. Mary’s Medical Center. 4 Plain tiff is h e re by give n n o tice that a failure to am end the com plaint as ordered m ay result in a recomm endation that the com plaint be dism issed for failure to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and/ or for failure to prosecute under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41 and L. R. Civ. P. 41.1. Plain tiff is als o re m in d e d of his obligation to prom ptly notify the Clerk of Court of any change in his contact inform ation. Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed Without Prepaym ent of Fees and Costs, (ECF No. 1), shall be held in abeyance pending initial review of Plaintiff’s am ended com plaint or pending other further proceedings in this case. The Clerk is instructed to provide a copy of this order to Plaintiff. EN TERED : February 8, 20 18 5
]]>
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.
