United States District Court, S.D. Georgia, Savannah Division
Christopher L. Ray United States Magistrate Judge.
se plaintiff Ulysses Blackshear, detained at Coastal
State Prison, alleges in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Complaint
that he was subjected to deliberate indifference and
excessive force when he was denied needed surgery after he
was run over by a golf cart. Doc. 1 at 3. The Court granted
plaintiff's request to pursue his case in forma
pauperis (IFP), doc. 7, and he returned the necessary
forms. Docs. 9 & 10. The Court now screens the Complaint
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which requires the
immediate dismissal of any pro se complaint that
fails to state at least one actionable claim against a
governmental entity or official.
alleges that on or around February 8, 2018, he tried to go to
the prison law library. Doc. 1 at 6. Upon returning from the
library due to its closure, plaintiff-who is wheelchair
bound-was run over by a maintenance worker driving a golf
cart. Id. Plaintiff's injuries were severe
enough that he lost consciousness. Id. Plaintiff was
sent to the E.R. at the prison and then to Memorial Health,
where he was given a CAT scan and informed he would need
surgery. Id. Upon returning to the prison he
informed Dr. Awe that he was in serious pain in his head,
neck, and back and was unable to sleep or shower.
Id. He alleges that he repeatedly informed both Dr.
Awe and the Warden that he was in pain and had been told he
would need surgery. Id. at 7, 12-13. Dr. Awe sent
plaintiff for an MRI (where plaintiff was again informed that
surgery was required), and was aware of plaintiff's need
for surgery, he refused to provide either pain medication or
surgery. Id. Plaintiff complains of serious
headaches, excruciating pain in his neck band back, muscle
spasms, nerve damage, and spinal stenosis. Id. at
11. He states that his condition is worsening daily.
Id. Plaintiff has sued the Warden of Coastal State
Prison, Dr. Awe, and Mr. Miller (the individual who ran him
advance a claim for denial of proper medical care, “an
inmate must allege acts or omissions sufficiently harmful to
evidence deliberate indifference to serious medical
needs.” Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106
(1976); see Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832
(1994) (the Constitution imposes a duty upon prison officials
to “ensure that inmates receive adequate food,
clothing, shelter, and medical care.”). “[N]ot
every claim by a prisoner that he has not received adequate
medical treatment, ” however, “states a violation
of the Eighth Amendment.” Harris v. Thigpen,
941 F.2d 1495, 1505 (11th Cir. 1991) (quotes and cite
omitted). A prisoner must show that: (1) he had a serious
medical need; (2) defendants were deliberately indifference
to that need; and (3) some injury was caused by
defendants' indifference. Goebert v. Lee Cty.,
510 F.3d 1312, 1326 (11th Cir. 2007). To show deliberate
indifference, plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendants
had “(1) subjective knowledge of a risk of serious
harm; (2) disregard of that risk; (3) by conduct that is more
than gross negligence.” Youmans v. Gagnon, 626
F.3d 557, 564 (11th Cir. 2010). Plaintiff alleges that he was
injured when he was run over by a golf cart, was informed by
two outside doctors that he needed surgery to address his
resulting injuries and severe pain, informed prison officials
of this need repeatedly, but has not received that surgery or
pain treatment in the last ten months. Doc. 1 at 12-13. At
this screening stage, these allegations are sufficient to
allow the case to proceed against the Warden and Dr. Awe.
plaintiff's claims against the driver of the golf cart,
they appear to sound in state law negligence. 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 is not the proper vehicle for such a claim.
Id. (providing remedy for deprivation of rights,
privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and
laws). However, the Court assumes at this juncture that
plaintiff intends to proceed pursuant to Georgia laws.
Federal district courts have original jurisdiction over civil
actions “arising under the Constitution, laws, or
treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
Federal courts may also exercise supplemental jurisdiction
over state law claims that “form part of the same case
or controversy under Article III of the United States
Constitution.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). Because at
least one viable federal claim has been approved for service
upon defendants, plaintiff's state law claims stemming
from his injuries are properly before this Court as well.
See Williams v. Morales, 2018 WL 2087247 at *3 (S.D.
Ga. May 4, 2018) (citing inter alia, Kokkonen v. Guardian
Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994)).
claims for deliberate indifference on the part of Dr. Awe and
the Warden, and negligence against Mr. Miller, are thus
APPROVED for service and the Clerk is
DIRECTED to forward a copy of this Order,
along with plaintiffs Complaint, to the Marshal for service
upon the defendants so that they may respond.
it is time for plaintiff to pay his filing fee. His PLRA
paperwork reflects $79.08 in average monthly deposits. Doc.
5. He therefore owes a $15.81 initial partial filing fee.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b) (1) (requiring an
initial fee assessment “when funds exist, ” under
a specific 20 percent formula). Plaintiffs custodian (or
designee) shall remit the $15.81 and shall set aside 20
percent of all future deposits to his account, then forward
those funds to the Clerk each time the set aside amount
reaches $10.00, until the balance of the Court's $350.00
filing fee has been paid in full.
 The Clerk is DIRECTED
to send this Order to plaintiffs account custodian
immediately. In the event he is transferred to another
institution, his present custodian shall forward a copy of
this Order and all financial information concerning payment
of the filing fee and costs in this case to plaintiffs new
custodian. The balance due from plaintiff shall be collected
by the custodian at his next ...