Ferrari v. Brown

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

FORT SMITH DIVISION

DENVER RAY FERRARI PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 2:20-CV-02003

SHERIFF RON BROWN, NURSE BECKY DEFENDANTS

CORRERO, and DR. JONATHAN WHITE

ORDER

The case is before the Court for preservice screening under the provisions of the Prison

Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the Court has the obligation to

screen any complaint in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or

employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a).

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff filed his Complaint on January 17, 2020. (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff alleges that his

constitutional rights were violated while he was a pretrial detainee in the Crawford County

Detention Center from November 2019 through January 2020. (Id. at 4). Plaintiff alleges he

suffered from a severe post-surgical fracture of the spine at levels C-2 through C-5. Plaintiff

alleges he was denied medical care, as proven by the denials of his grievances. Plaintiff does not

identify what medical care was requested and denied, nor does he attach copies of his grievances.

He alleges that his requests for copies were denied. He further alleges he was placed in isolation

for medical reasons and denied mental health assistance. (Id. at 4). Plaintiff does not identify any

mental health diagnosis or what mental health assistance was requested and denied. He alleges

the facility violated his rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act with “Biblical

undertones!” “Very personal indignities at large!” (Id. at 6).

Plaintiff proceeds against all Defendants in both their official and personal capacities. (Id.

at 5). He seeks compensatory and punitive damages. (Id. at 6).

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Under the PLRA, the Court is obligated to screen the case prior to service of process being

issued. The Court must dismiss a complaint, or any portion of it, if it contains claims that: (1) are

frivolous, malicious, or fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or, (2) seeks

monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).

A claim is frivolous if “it lacks an arguable basis either in law or fact.” Neitzke v. Williams,

490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). A claim fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted if it

does not allege “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic

Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). “In evaluating whether a pro se plaintiff has asserted

sufficient facts to state a claim, we hold ‘a pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded ... to less

stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.’” Jackson v. Nixon, 747 F.3d 537,

541 (8th Cir. 2014) (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007)). Even a pro se Plaintiff

must allege specific facts sufficient to support a claim. Martin v. Sargent, 780 F.2d 1334, 1337

(8th Cir. 1985).

III. ANALYSIS

Plaintiff characterized his claim as a denial of medical care. He fails, however, to identify

what medical care or mental health assistance was needed and not provided. He therefore fails to

state a plausible claim for the denial or delay of medical care. See Martin, 780 F.2d at 1337 (even

a pro se Plaintiff must allege specific facts sufficient to support a claim).

Plaintiff’s only identifiable factual claim is that he, a pretrial detainee, was placed in

isolation for medical reasons. This allegation also fails to state a claim of constitutional dimension.

The Eighth Amendment prohibits “cruel and unusual punishments.” U.S. Const. amend VIII. The

Due Process Clause prohibits any punishment of a pretrial detainee, be that punishment cruel-and-

unusual or not. Edwards v. Byrd, 750 F.3d 728, 732 n. 2 (8th Cir. 2014) (emphasis in original).

“Conditions or restrictions of pretrial detention that are reasonably related to a legitimate

governmental objective do not, without more, amount to punishment.” Davis v. Hall, 992 F.2d

151, 153 (8th Cir. 1993). The Eighth Circuit has held that placement of a pretrial detainee in

solitary confinement solely for medical reasons does not amount to punishment. See Davis, 992

F.2d at 153 (pretrial detainee’s conclusory statement that his placement in solitary confinement for

his medical condition constituted punishment was insufficient to state a claim); Hancock v.

Unknown United States Marshal, 587 F.2d 377, 378-79 (8th Cir. 1978) (holding that placement of

prisoner in solitary confinement pending trial was not unconstitutional, especially when based

solely on the prisoner’s medical condition).

Here, Plaintiff has made only the conclusory statement that he was placed in solitary

confinement for medical reasons. He provided no factual allegations which either state or permit

the inference that this was done to punish him in any way. He therefore fails to state any plausible

constitutional claims.

IV. CONCLUSION

For these reasons, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT

PREJUDICE. The dismissal of this action constitutes a “strike” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). The

Clerk is directed to place a § 1915(g) strike flag on the case.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 5th day of March 2020.

/s/P. K. Holmes, III

P. K. HOLMES, III

U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE