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.

Clarke v. Foley

United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Amarillo Division

January 16, 2020

JAMES DAVID CLARKE, JR., TDCJ-CID No. 1832072, Plaintiff,
v.
KEVIN D. FOLEY, et al., Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION DISMISSING CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT

          MATTHEW J. KACSMARYK, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Plaintiff JAMES DAVID CLARKE, JR., acting pro se and while a prisoner incarcerated in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division, has filed suit pursuant to Title 42, United States Code, Section 1983 complaining against the above-referenced defendants and has been granted permission to proceed in forma pauperis. For the following reasons, plaintiffs civil rights complaint is DISMISSED.

         JUDICIAL REVIEW

         When a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility brings an action with respect to prison conditions under any federal law, the Court may evaluate the complaint and dismiss it without service of process, AH v. Higgs, 892 F.2d 438, 440 (5th Cir. 1990), if it is frivolous, [1] malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A; 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). he same standards will support dismissal of a suit brought under any federal law by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility, where such suit concerns prison conditions. 42 U.S.C. 1997e(c)(1). A Spears hearing need not be conducted for every pro se complaint.[2] Wilson v. Barrientos, 926 F.2d 480, 483 n.4 (5th Cir. 1991).[3]

         PLAINTIFF'S CLAIMS

         At the time of filing this lawsuit, plaintiff was a prisoner incarcerated at the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) Clements Unit in Amarillo, Texas. Plaintiff claims that three defendants: Warden Kevin D. Foley, Sergeant Hector S. Ramirez, and Sergeant NFN Luccuro failed to "follow proper procedures" following an accident. (ECF No. 3). Immediately following the accident, plaintiff submitted an 1-60 request to see a physician. Plaintiff claims this failure resulted in a delay of over a month to get an X-ray of his hand. His hand suffered a fracture. Plaintiff was sent to see a specialist. Plaintiff claims his hand is still not "in line" and continues to cause him pain. Plaintiff asserts that if he had received immediate medical attention, he would not have needed to see a specialist because his hand "would probably" have healed with the bone in its original place if it was set immediately after the injury.

         ANALYSIS

         "[D]eliberate indifference to serious medical needs of prisoners constitutes the 'unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain' . . . proscribed by the Eighth Amendment." Such indifference may be "manifested by prison doctors in their response to the prisoner's needs or by prison guards in intentionally denying or delaying access to medical care or intentionally interfering with the treatment once prescribed." Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976). Deliberate indifference is defined as a failure to act where prison officials have knowledge of a substantial risk of serious harm to inmate health or safety. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994). Medical records showing sick calls, examinations, diagnoses, and medications may rebut an inmate's allegations of deliberate indifference. Banuelos v. McFarland, 41 F.3d 232, 235 (5th Cir. 1995).

         A delay which does not aggravate or exacerbate the medical condition does not constitute a constitutional violation. Martin v. Gentile, 849 F.2d 863, 871 (4th Cir. 1988). A delay in medical care to a prisoner can constitute an Eighth Amendment violation only if there has been deliberate indifference, which results in substantial harm. Mendoza v. Lynaugh, 989 F.2d 191, 195 (5th Cir. 1993). Plaintiff presents no allegation of deliberate indifference, but, at best, an allegation of medical malpractice or negligence. However, section 1983 is not a general tort statute, and mere negligence does not meet the standard for liability under section 1983. Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 331-34(1986).

         Plaintiff asserts defendants "failed to follow proper procedure" following his accident where his hand was injured. Plaintiffs complaint fails to articulate intentional conduct by the defendants in the delay of medical care. Plaintiff was provided and submitted an 1-60 request for medical care. Plaintiff fails to present any factual allegations that defendants deliberately failed to provide him access to medical care.

         CONCLUSION

         For the reasons set forth above and pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, sections 1915A and 1915(e)(2), as well as Title 42, United States Code, section 1997e(a), it is ORDERED that the Civil Rights Complaint by plaintiff filed pursuant to Title 42, United States Code, section 1983 be DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to state a claim.

         SO ...


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.