Danny Lee Carter Iii V Swvrja Duffield Facility Et Al

Key Facts

Issues

• The plaintiff fails to state any facts showing what the other defendant, Pam Norton, did that violated his constitutional rights. He does not describe how she was involved with the MAT issue at all or what position she holds at the jail related to decisions about addiction treatment. Under § 1983, liability will only lie where it is affirmatively shown that the official charged acted personally in the deprivation of the plaintiff's rights.
• The plaintiff's claims rest on his disagreement with jail medical staff about appropriate treatment for his drug addiction. Only deliberate indifference to an inmate's serious medical needs constitutes cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment. To prove deliberate indifference, the plaintiff must show that the defendant prison official had actual knowledge of both the inmate's serious medical condition and the excessive risk posed by the official's action or inaction. Mere negligence, errors in judgment, inadvertent oversights, or disagreements between doctor and patient about the prisoner's treatment plan do not support a finding that a defendant acted with deliberate indifference.
• The plaintiff's § 1983 claim against the Southwest Virginia Regional Jail Authority and Duffield jail facility fails because a local jail facility itself cannot qualify as a person subject to being sued under § 1983. While regional jail authorities can be sued directly under § 1983 for monetary, declaratory, or injunctive relief, the plaintiff must show that a policy promulgated by the jail authority was the moving force behind the deprivation of which he complains. The plaintiff has not stated facts showing that jail authority policies caused any particular violation of his constitutional rights, as required to present a viable § 1983 claim against this defendant.

Holdings

Remedies

Legal Principles

• Mere negligence, errors in judgment, inadvertent oversights, or disagreements between doctor and patient about treatment plan do not support a finding of deliberate indifference. Medical malpractice does not become a constitutional violation merely because the victim is a prisoner. Questions of medical judgment are not subject to judicial review. Complaint must allege enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.
• Local jail facility itself cannot qualify as a person subject to being sued under § 1983. Liability will only lie where it is affirmatively shown that the official charged acted personally in the deprivation of the plaintiff's rights. A complaint must be dismissed if it does not allege enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c)(1) allows dismissal of frivolous or meritless § 1983 actions.
• Plaintiff must show that a policy promulgated by the jail authority was the moving force behind the deprivation complained of. For § 1983 claims against local governing bodies, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the entity's official policy or custom played a part in the alleged violation of federal law. For medical care claims, deliberate indifference to serious medical needs constitutes cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment, requiring proof of actual knowledge of both the inmate's serious medical condition and the excessive risk posed by the official's action or inaction.

Precedent Name

• Cooper v. Sheehan
• Polk Cnty. v. Dodson
• McCoy v. Chesapeake Corr. Ctr.
• Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly
• Russell v. Sheffer
• Vinnedge v. Gibbs
• Jackson v. Lightsey
• Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs.
• City of Oklahoma City v. Tuttle
• Estelle v. Gamble

Cited Statute

• Civil Rights Act
• In Forma Pauperis
• Prison Litigation

Judge Name

Passage Text

• Only 'deliberate indifference to an inmate's serious medical needs constitutes cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment.' Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 178 (4th Cir. 2014). To prove deliberate indifference, Carter must show that the defendant prison official had 'actual . . . knowledge of both the inmate's serious medical condition and the excessive risk posed by the official's action or inaction.' Id. Mere negligence, errors in judgment, inadvertent oversights, or disagreements between doctor and patient about the prisoner's treatment plan do not support a finding that a defendant acted with deliberate indifference. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 105-06 (1976) ('Medical malpractice does not become a constitutional violation merely because the victim is a prisoner.'); Russell v. Sheffer, 528 F.2d 318, 319 (4th Cir. 1975) ('Questions of medical judgment are not subject to judicial review').
• McCoy v. Chesapeake Corr. Ctr., 788 F. Supp. 890, 894 (E.D. Va. 1992). Thus, Carter has no actionable claim against the Duffield jail facility itself.
• Because Carter's allegations fail to state viable claims under § 1983, the claims cannot proceed against the defendants he has named. I will summarily dismiss the action without prejudice under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c)(1) for failure to state a claim.