Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Thomley v. Bennett

United States District Court, S.D. Georgia, Waycross Division

November 17, 2014

CHARLES RUFUS THOMLEY, II, Plaintiff,
v.
RAMSEY BENNETT, Sheriff; Lt. RALPH MILLER; HEATHER SPRADLY, Nurse; and Dr. PETER ROBLE, Defendants.

ORDER and MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

JAMES E. GRAHAM, Magistrate Judge.

Plaintiff, who is currently housed at the Lowndes County Jail in Valdosta, Georgia, filed a cause of action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 contesting certain conditions of his confinement while he was housed at the Pierce County Jail in Blackshear, Georgia. A detainee proceeding in a civil action against officers or employees of government entities must comply with the mandates of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915 & 1915A. In determining compliance, the court shall be guided by the longstanding principle that pro se pleadings are entitled to liberal construction. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972); Walker v. Dugger, 860 F.2d 1010, 1011 (11th Cir. 1988).

28 U.S.C. § 1915A requires a district court to screen the complaint for cognizable claims before or as soon as possible after docketing. The court must dismiss the complaint or any portion of the complaint that is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may granted, or seeks monetary damages from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) and (2).

In Mitchell v. Farcass, 112 F.3d 1483, 1490 (11th Cir. 1997), the Eleventh Circuit interpreted the language contained in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), which is nearly identical to that contained in the screening provisions at § 1915A(b). As the language of § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) closely tracks the language of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), the court held that the same standards for determining whether to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) should be applied to prisoner complaints filed pursuant to § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Mitchell, 112 F.3d at 1490. While the court in Mitchell interpreted § 1915(e), its interpretation guides this court in applying the identical language of § 1915A.

Plaintiff asserts that he was admitted to the hospital for two (2) days and was prescribed medication for dizziness. Plaintiff contends that he was taken back to the Pierce County Jail and was placed in an upstairs cell, and he was not given his medication. Plaintiff alleges that he told the floor officer that he was suffering from dizziness, and the officer took him to see Defendant Spradly, the nurse. Plaintiff asserts that Defendant Spradly ran a test on him and told him he was fine. Plaintiff contends that he asked why he had not received his medication yet, and Defendant Spradly told him Defendant Robles, the doctor, had not ordered it. Plaintiff also contends that Defendant Spradly told him to tough it out and to quit worrying. Plaintiff avers that he was coming down the stairs later the same day when he became dizzy and fell down the stairs. Plaintiff contends that Defendant Spradly came to the bottom of the stairs and asked him if he could get up, but he could not. Plaintiff asserts that he asked Defendant Spradly to get him medical attention, but she told him she could not help him if he could not get up from the ground. Plaintiff states that he could not get up from the floor and that Defendant Spradly would not get him a neck brace or back board and left. Plaintiff also states that Defendant Miller tased him in an attempt to get Plaintiff to get off the ground, which caused Plaintiff to urinate on himself. Plaintiff contends that Defendant Miller laughed at him. Plaintiff avers that Defendant Ramsey came to where he was on the floor, and Defendant Ramsey refused to get him any help. Plaintiff contends he was taken back to the hospital by EMTs, where he was diagnosed with a bulging disc and a separated shoulder.

The Eighth Amendment's proscription against cruel and unusual punishment imposes a constitutional duty upon prison officials to take reasonable measures to guarantee the safety of prison inmates. This duty to safeguard also embodies the principle expressed by the Court in Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976), forbidding prison officials from demonstrating deliberate indifference to the serious medical needs of inmates. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832 (1994). Plaintiff fails to make sufficient allegations against Defendant Robles. Instead, Plaintiff merely asserts that Defendant Spradly informed him that Defendant Robles had not ordered his prescribed medication yet on the same day he returned from the hospital. There is no allegation that Defendant Robles was aware that Plaintiff had a serious medical need and was deliberately indifferent to that need. Plaintiffs claims against Defendant Robles should be dismissed. However, Plaintiffs allegations against Defendants Spradly and Bennett are sufficient to allow Plaintiff to proceed on a deliberate indifference claim.

Additionally, it is a well-settled principle that "the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain... constitutes cruel and unusual punishment" in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 319 (1986) (quoting Ingraham v. Wright, 430 U.S. 651, 670 (1977) (internal quotes omitted)). Plaintiff's allegations against Defendant Miller are sufficient to allow him to proceed against Defendant Miller on this claim.

These allegations, when read in a light most favorable to the Plaintiff, arguably state colorable claims for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A against Defendants Spradly, Bennett, and Miller for alleged violations of the Eighth Amendment. A copy of Plaintiff's Complaint and a copy of this Order shall be served upon Defendants Spradley, Bennett, and Miller by the United States Marshal without prepayment of cost. If any Defendant elects to file a Waiver of Reply, then he or she must file either a dispositive motion or an answer to the complaint within thirty (30) days of the filing of said Waiver of Reply.

INSTRUCTIONS TO DEFENDANTS

Since the Plaintiff is authorized to proceed in forma pauperis, service must be effected by the United States Marshal. FED. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3). In most cases, the marshal will first mail a copy of the complaint to the Defendants by first-class mail and request that the Defendants waive formal service of summons. FED. R. Civ. P. 4(d); Local Rule 4.7. Individual and corporate defendants have a duty to avoid unnecessary costs of serving the summons, and any such defendant who fails to comply with the request for waiver must bear the costs of personal service unless good cause can be shown for the failure to return the waiver. FED. R. Civ. P. 4(d)(2). Generally, a defendant who timely returns the waiver is not required to answer the complaint until sixty (60) days after the date that the marshal sent the request for waiver. FED. R. Civ. P. 4(d)(3).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants are hereby granted leave of court to take the deposition of the Plaintiff upon oral examination. FED. R. Civ. P. 30(a). Defendants shall ensure that the Plaintiff's deposition and any other depositions in the case are taken within the 140-day discovery period allowed by this court's local rules.

In the event that Defendants take the deposition of any other person, Defendants are ordered to comply with the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30 as set forth herein. As the Plaintiff will likely not be in attendance for such a deposition, Defendants shall notify Plaintiff of the deposition and advise him that he may serve on Defendants, in a sealed envelope, within ten (10) days of the notice of deposition, written questions the Plaintiff wishes to propound to the witness, if any. Defendants shall present such questions to the witness seriatim during the deposition. FED. R. Civ. P. 30(c).

INSTRUCTIONS TO PLAINTIFF

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall serve upon Defendants or, if appearance has been entered by counsel, upon their attorneys, a copy of every further pleading or other document submitted for consideration by the court. Plaintiff shall include with the original paper to be filed with the Clerk of Court a certificate stating the date on which a true and correct copy of any document was mailed to Defendants or their counsel. FED. R. Civ. P. 5. "Every pleading shall contain a caption setting forth the name of the court, the title of the action, [and] the file number." FED. R. Civ. P. 10(a). Any paper received by a district judge or magistrate ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.