holding that the ADA applies to state prisons
How later courts described this case
- holding that the ADA applies to state prisons
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
STATESVILLE DIVISION
5:20-cv-00170-MR
FREDERICK PRATT, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. ) ORDER
)
JOHN ROBBINS, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
________________________________ )
THIS MATTER is before the Court on initial review of Plaintiff’s
Complaint [Doc. 1], filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)
and 1915A. Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis. [Docs. 2, 6].
I. BACKGROUND
Pro se Plaintiff Frederick Pratt (“Plaintiff”) is a North Carolina state
inmate currently incarcerated at Alexander Correctional Institution
(“Alexander”) in Taylorsville, North Carolina. He filed this action on October
19, 2020, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, naming as Defendants John
Robbins, identified as a Sergeant at Alexander; John Delozier, identified as
a Correctional Officer at Alexander; Stephanie Miller, identified as a
Lieutenant and Unit Manager at Alexander; and John Hernandez, identified
as the Superintendent of Alexander. [Doc. 1 at 2-3].
Plaintiff alleges that the following occurred between 3:00 p.m. on April
11, 2020 and 2:00 a.m. on April 12, 2020. [Id. at 5].
Sgt. Robbins and Officer Delozier slammed me face
first on the concrete floor while handcuffed and
restrained. Video footage also shows these officers
slam my chin repeatedly into the floor while choking
and kneeling on my neck. Stephanie Miller then gave
these officers orders to put me in Full Restraints for
8 hrs. in cell C-37 on Lower Red. During these 8 hrs.
I was denied the use of toilet, perform hygein [sic] to
get blood off my face and medical staff supervision.
I was also housed improperly where I faced
substantial risk of harm from arrival 7-2-19 till this
assault occurred. Video footage verifies all issues of
material facts listed.
[Id.]. Plaintiff alleges that these events violated his rights under the Eighth
and Fourteenth Amendments, the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”),
42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq., and “Excessive Force laws.”1 [Id. at 3].
For injuries, Plaintiff claims he suffered various physical injuries and
that he is being treated for post-traumatic stress disorder and anxiety from
the alleged use of force. [Id. at 5].
For relief, Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages. [Id.].
1 It appears that Plaintiff’s claim based on violation of his Eighth Amendment rights and
“excessive force laws” are one in the same and will be treated as such.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
Because Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, the Court must
review the Complaint to determine whether it is subject to dismissal on the
grounds that it is “frivolous or malicious [or] fails to state a claim on which
relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Furthermore, under § 1915A
the Court must conduct an initial review and identify and dismiss the
complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if it is frivolous, malicious, or fails
to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or seeks monetary relief
from a defendant who is immune to such relief.
In its frivolity review, this Court must determine whether the Complaint
raises an indisputably meritless legal theory or is founded upon clearly
baseless factual contentions, such as fantastic or delusional scenarios.
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327-28 (1989). Furthermore, a pro se
complaint must be construed liberally. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520
(1972). However, the liberal construction requirement will not permit a
district court to ignore a clear failure to allege facts in his Complaint which
set forth a claim that is cognizable under federal law. Weller v. Dep’t of Soc.
Servs., 901 F.2d 387 (4th Cir. 1990).
III. DISCUSSION
“To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege the
violation of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States
and must show that the deprivation of that right was committed by a person
acting under color of state law.” West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).
A. Eighth Amendment
The Eighth Amendment prohibits the infliction of “cruel and unusual
punishments,” U.S. CONST. amend. VIII, and protects prisoners from the
“unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain.” Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312,
319 (1986). To establish an Eighth Amendment claim, an inmate must
satisfy both an objective component–that the harm inflicted was sufficiently
serious–and a subjective component–that the prison official acted with a
sufficiently culpable state of mind. Williams v. Benjamin, 77 F.3d 756, 761
(4th Cir. 1996). In adjudicating an excessive force claim, the Court must
consider such factors as the need for the use of force, the relationship
between that need and the amount of force used, the extent of the injury
inflicted, and, ultimately, whether the force was “applied in a good faith effort
to maintain or restore discipline, or maliciously and sadistically for the very
purpose of causing harm.” Whitley, 475 U.S. at 320-21.
Furthermore, the Supreme Court has made clear that “[a]n inmate who
is gratuitously beaten by guards does not lose his ability to pursue an
excessive force claim merely because he has the good fortune to escape
without serious injury.” Wilkins v. Gaddy, 130 S. Ct. 1175, 1178-79 (2010).
Taking Plaintiff’s allegations as true for the purposes of this initial
review and drawing all reasonable inferences in his favor, Plaintiff states an
Eighth Amendment claim against Defendants Robbins, Delozier, and Miller.
B. Fourteenth Amendment
Plaintiff does not allege how he believes his Fourteenth Amendment
rights were violated and the Court sees nothing in Plaintiff’s allegations from
which it may reasonably infer such a claim. This claim will, therefore, be
dismissed without prejudice.
C. ADA
While the ADA does apply to state prisons, see Pennsylvania Dep’t of
Corr. v. Yeskey, 524 U.S. 206, 210 (1998) (holding that the ADA applies to
state prisons), Plaintiff has failed to allege how his rights thereunder were
violated. And, again, the Court sees nothing from which it may reasonably
infer such a claim. This claim, therefore, will also be dismissed without
prejudice.
D. Defendant Hernandez
Because Plaintiff makes no allegations against Defendant Hernandez,
the Superintendent of Alexander, it appears that Plaintiff’s claim against him
is based on supervisor liability. To establish liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983,
however, a plaintiff must show that the defendant “acted personally” to cause
the alleged violation. See Vinnedge v. Gibbs, 550 F.2d 926, 928 (4th Cir.
1977) (citation omitted). As such, the doctrine of respondeat superior does
not apply in actions brought under § 1983. See Monell v. Dep’t of Soc.
Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 694 (1978). Accordingly, Plaintiff has failed to state a
claim against Defendant Hernandez, and he will be dismissed as a
Defendant in this matter.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court concludes that the Plaintiff’s
Complaint against Defendants Robbins, Delozier, and Miller for violation of
Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment rights survives initial review. Plaintiff, however,
has failed to state claims under the Fourteenth Amendment or the ADA and
these claims will be dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiff has also failed to
state a claim against Defendant Hernandez, and he will be dismissed.
ORDER
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that all claims asserted in this matter
as to all Defendants are hereby DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to
state a claim, with the exception of the Eighth Amendment claim against
Defendants Robbins, Delozier, and Miller, which is allowed to pass initial
review.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant John Hernandez is hereby
DISMISSED as a Defendant in this matter for failure to state a claim.
Local Rule 4.3 sets forth a procedure to waive service of process for
current and former employees of the North Carolina Department of Public
Safety (“NCDPS”) in actions filed by North Carolina State prisoners. In light
of the Court’s determination that this case passes initial review, the Court will
order the Clerk of Court to commence the procedure for waiver of service as
set forth in Local Civil Rule 4.3 for Defendants Robbins, Delozier, and Miller,
who are alleged to be current or former employees of NCDPS.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that Clerk of Court shall commence
the procedure for waiver of service as set forth in Local Civil Rule 4.3 for
Defendants Robbins, Delozier, and Miller, who are alleged to be current or
former employees of NCDPS.
IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed: December 7, 2020
Martifi Reidinger ey,
Chief United States District Judge lll