The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
JAMES PATRICK WHITE,
Plaintiff,
v. Case No.: 2:25-cv-75-SPC-KCD
OFFICER MURPHY and
ROMONA BADER,
Defendants.
/
OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff James Patrick White’s Complaint (Doc. 1).
White is a prisoner of the Florida Department of Corrections, and he sues two
prison officials—officer Murphy and nurse Ramona Bader—under 42 U.S.C. §
1983. United States Magistrate Judge Kyle Dudek granted White leave to
proceed in forma pauperis, so the Court must review the Complaint sua sponte
to determine whether it is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks
monetary damages against a party who is immune from such relief. See 28
U.S.C. 1915(e)(2).
To state a § 1983 claim, a plaintiff must allege that (1) the defendant
deprived him of a right secured under the Constitution or federal law, and (2)
the deprivation occurred under color of state law. Bingham v. Thomas, 654
F.3d 1171, 1175 (11th Cir. 2011) (citing Arrington v. Cobb Cnty., 139 F.3d 865,
872 (11th Cir. 1998)). In addition, a plaintiff must allege and establish an
affirmative causal connection between the defendant’s conduct and the
constitutional deprivation. Marsh v. Butler Cnty., Ala., 268 F.3d 1014, 1059
(11th Cir. 2001).
White alleges that while he was in the shower, officer Murphy punched
him, and he fell. As a result, White cut his foot on the shower door and hit the
back of his head. Another officer named Brown took White to the medical
examination room, where Bader asked if he had any injuries. Brown said, “Oh,
I’m quite sure he’s OK. Am I right, White? There’s no need to make this
situation worse than it already is.” White asked if he would be in trouble, and
Brown responded, “That depends on you.” (Doc. 1 at 4). Bader did not
intervene or get up to examine the cut on White’s foot. White was then escorted
back to his cell.
White sues Murphy for excessive force, but he does not state the legal
basis for his claim against Bader. Presumably, White sues Bader for deliberate
indifference to a serious medical need. But the alleged facts are not sufficient
to support such a claim. In Estelle v. Gamble, the Supreme Court established
that “deliberate indifference to serious medical needs of prisoners constitutes
the ‘unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain,’ proscribed by the Eighth
Amendment.” 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976). But not every claim of inadequate
medical treatment gives rise to an Eighth Amendment violation. Id. at 105.
Negligence in diagnosis or treatment—even if it constitutes medical
malpractice—does not necessarily violate the constitution. Id. at 106.
“To prevail on a claim of deliberate indifference to serious medical need
in violation of the [Eighth] Amendment, a plaintiff must show: ‘(1) a serious
medical need; (2) the defendant['s] deliberate indifference to that need; and (3)
causation between that indifference and the plaintiff's injury.’” Youmans v.
Gagnon, 626 F.3d 557, 563 (11th Cir. 2010) (quoting Mann v. Taser Int'l, Inc.,
588 F.3d 1291, 1306–07 (11th Cir. 2009)). In the Eleventh Circuit, “[a] serious
medical need is ‘one that has been diagnosed by a physician as mandating
treatment or one that is so obvious that a lay person would easily recognize the
necessity for a doctor’s attention.’” Shaw v. Allen, 701 F. App’x 891, 893 (11th
Cir. 2017) (quoting Farrow v. West, 320 F.3d 1235, 1243 (11th Cir. 2003)).
Deliberate indifference is akin to subjective recklessness as used in criminal
law. To establish deliberate indifferent, a plaintiff “must show that the
defendant was actually, subjectively aware that his own conduct caused a
substantial risk of serious harm to the plaintiff.” Wade v. McDade, 106 F.4th
1251, 1262 (11th Cir. 2024).
White alleges Bader failed to physically get up to examine the “nice size
gash” on his left foot and ankle. (Doc. 1 at 4-5). That is not enough to state an
Eighth Amendment claim. White does not plausibly allege that the cut on his
foot was a serious medical need or that Bader was subjectively aware that her
failure to examine the foot would cause White serious harm, nor does White
allege that he actually suffered any harm as a result of Bader’s conduct. The
Court will thus dismiss White’s claim against Bader.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED:
Plaintiff James Patrick White’s claim against Ramona Bader is
DISMISSED without prejudice. The Clerk is DIRECTED to terminate
Bader as a party to this case.
DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on March 3, 2025.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
SA: FTMP-1
Copies: All Parties of Record