Moore v. Bruce

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

DELTA DIVISION

TIERRE MOORE PLAINTIFF

Reg. #16431-028

V. NO. 2:22-cv-00067-KGB-ERE

BRUCE, et al. DEFENDANTS

ORDER

I. Overview:

On April 25, 2022, pro se plaintiff Tierre Moore, a federal inmate, filed this

civil rights lawsuit under Bivens v. Six Unknown Agents of the Fed. Bureau of

Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).1 Doc. 1, 6. Mr. Moore alleges that, while he was

incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institution in Forrest City, Arkansas

(“FCI”), he received inadequate medical care for injuries that he sustained during

transport from Oklahoma.

Mr. Moore initially failed to file a complete in forma pauperis (IFP)

1 Because Mr. Moore alleged that a federal actor, rather than a state actor, violated his

constitutional rights, he properly brought his constitutional claims under Bivens v. Six Unknown

Agents, supra. In Bivens, the Supreme Court authorized an implicit cause of action for prisoners to

bring certain civil rights lawsuits for damages against federal officials. Recently, the Supreme

Court has suggested that a federal plaintiff may only bring a Bivens action for claims arising under

the Fourth, Fifth, and Eighth Amendments. Ziglar v. Abbasi, 582 U.S. 120 (2017). See Bivens, 403

U.S. at 397 (Fourth Amendment unreasonable search and seizure); Davis v. Passman, 442 U.S.

228 (1979) (Fifth Amendment gender discrimination); Carlson v. Green, 446 U.S. 14 (1980)

(Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to medical needs).

application or pay the statutory filing fee. As a result, on April 26, 2022, I ordered

Mr. Moore to either file a complete IFP application or pay the statutory filing fee

within 30 days. Doc. 3. Mr. Moore failed to timely comply with the Court’s April

26, 2022 Order.

On May 27, 2022, I recommended that Mr. Moore’s complaint be dismissed.

Doc. 4. Later that same day, Mr. Moore filed a complete IFP application and an

addendum to his complaint. Docs. 5 & 6. Therefore, I will now withdraw my May

27, 2022 Recommendation (Doc. 4).

This Order also grants Mr. Moore’s pending motion for leave to proceed IFP,

identifies deficiencies in Mr. Moore’s complaint, with addendum, and gives Mr.

Moore the opportunity to file an amended complaint.

II. In Forma Pauperis Application:

A review of the documents submitted by Mr. Moore demonstrates that he

qualifies to proceed IFP. Therefore, his motion to proceed IFP (Doc. 5) is

GRANTED.

Based on Mr. Moore’s prison trust account information, the Court will assess

an initial partial payment of $4.93. His custodians are instructed to immediately

collect the initial partial payment. In addition, his custodians are instructed to collect

the balance of the $350.00 filing fee by deducting monthly payments equal to 20%

of the preceding month’s income credited to Mr. Moore’s prison trust account each

time the amount exceeds $10.00. The entire $350.00 filing fee must be paid, even if

the lawsuit is dismissed before trial. Mr. Moore’s custodian should clearly identify

the monthly payments by the name and number of this case.2

2. Deficiencies in Complaint:

As explained below, in its current form, Mr. Moore’s complaint fails to state

a plausible constitutional claim that would survive screening. However, rather than

screen the complaint and recommend dismissal, the Court will postpone the

screening process3 to give Mr. Moore the opportunity to file an amended complaint

clarifying his constitutional claims and correcting the deficiencies in his current

complaint.

Mr. Moore’s original complaint alleges that the head nurse at FCI failed to

provide him medical treatment for injuries he sustained to his neck and lower back

during transport from Oklahoma.4 Mr. Moore later filed an addendum to his

2Tierre Moore v. Bruce, et al., E.D. Ark. No. 2:22-cv-00067-KGB-ERE.

3 Screening is mandated by the Prison Litigation Reform Act, which requires federal

courts to screen prisoner complaints seeking relief against a governmental entity, officer,

or employee. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or a portion

thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that: (a) are legally frivolous or malicious; (b) fail

to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (c) seek monetary relief from a

defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). When making this

determination, the Court must accept the truth of the factual allegations contained in the

complaint, and it may consider the documents attached to the complaint. Ashcroft v. Iqbal,

556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009); Reynolds v. Dormire, 636 F.3d 976, 979 (8th Cir. 2011).

4 Mr. Moore’s originally also sued Bruce, an employee of the Federal Transit Center in

Oklahoma and an unknown federal agent employed by the Federal Transit Center in Oklahoma.

complaint identifying the head nurse as RN Mrs. Langley.5 Doc. 6. Mr. Moore sues

Defendant Langley in both her individual and official capacity seeking only

injunctive relief.6

However, the facts contained in Mr. Moore’s complaint are insufficient to

state a plausible medical deliberate indifference claim against Defendant Langley.

To state a plausible medical deliberate indifference claim, Mr. Moore must

allege facts which, accepted as true, are sufficient to support a reasonable inference

that: (1) he had “objectively serious medical needs”; and (2) Defendant Langley

“actually knew of but deliberately disregarded those needs.” Hamner v. Burls, 937

F.3d 1171, 1177 (8th Cir. 2019); see also Saylor v. Nebraska, 812 F.3d 637, 644 (8th

Cir. 2016). A medical need is objectively serious if it has been “diagnosed by a

physician as requiring treatment” or if it is “so obvious that even a layperson would

easily recognize the necessity for a doctor’s attention.” Barton v. Taber, 908 F.3d

1119, 1124 (8th Cir. 2018). Under the subjective component of an inadequate

medical care claim, prison officials may not “deliberately delay or deny prisoners’

medical care,” but a prisoner “must show more than negligence, more even than

The Court previously severed those claims to allow Mr. Moore to file a lawsuit based on those

claims in the proper federal district court in Oklahoma. Doc. 2.

5 The Clerk is instructed to update the docket sheet to identify one of the Doe

Defendant as RN Langley.

6 In his request for relief, Mr. Moore states, “I feel that I have a right to be examined by

medical for the above complaints . . ..” Doc. 1 at 4.

gross negligence,” to make out a constitutional violation. Hamner, 937 F.3d at 1177;

see Roberts v. Kopel, 917 F.3d 1039, 1042 (8th Cir. 2019) (deliberate indifference

requires a mental state “akin to criminal recklessness”).

When a prisoner alleges that a delay in medical treatment has violated his

constitutional rights, the “objective seriousness of the deprivation should also be

measured ‘by reference to the effect of delay in treatment.’” Robinson v. Hager, 292

F.3d 560, 564 (8th Cir. 2002) (no Eighth Amendment violation if a prisoner is not

actually harmed by the failure to receive medical care).

Mr. Moore’s current complaint alleges that RN Langley failed to see him for

injuries he incurred on a bus during his transport to the BOP’s Forrest City facility.

The facts alleged are insufficient to state a plausible claim that Defendant Langley

violated his right to constitutionally adequate medical care.

III. Guidelines for Filing Amended Complaint:

Mr. Moore has thirty days to file an amended complaint. If Mr. Moore files

an amended complaint, he should specifically: (1) explain how Defendant Langley

was aware of his need for medication or medical treatment; (2) explain what

Defendant Langley did to deny him medical care and how many times she did it; and

(3) state the injury he suffered as a result of Defendant Langley’s unconstitutional

conduct.

Mr. Moore’s amended complaint, if filed, will supersede or replace the current

complaint. See In re Atlas Lines, Inc., 209 F.3d 1064, 1067 (8th Cir. 2000) (an

amended complaint supersedes an original complaint and renders the original

complaint without legal effect). So, Mr. Moore should make sure that his amended

complaint includes all allegations relevant to the claim(s) he wants to pursue in this

lawsuit.

Finally, in his amended complaint, Mr. Moore need only include a “short and

plain statement” showing that he is entitled to relief, with factual allegations that are

“simple, concise, and direct.” FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a)(1) & (d). At this stage, there is no

need to identify witnesses or to describe evidence that he may rely on later to prove

his claim.

IV. Conclusion:

For the reasons explained above,

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT:

1. The Court withdraws its May 27, 2022 Recommendation (Doc. 4).

2. Mr. Moore’s motion for leave to proceed IFP (Doc. 5) is GRANTED.

2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send a copy of this Order to Forrest

City Low, Federal Correctional Institution, Post Office Box 9000, Forrest City,

Arkansas 72336.

3. Mr. Moore may file an amended complaint within thirty (30) days of

the entry of this Order.

4. If Mr. Moore fails to file an amended complaint, the Court will screen

the original complaint, along with the addendum, which is likely to result in the

dismissal of this case.

5. The Clerk is instructed to provide Mr. Moore a blank 42 U.S.C. § 1983

complaint form, along with a copy of this Order.

So Ordered 17 November 2023.

th S A 3 ES MAGISTRATE JUDGE