From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Vaughn v. Stone

United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Dallas Division
Apr 27, 2004
No. 3:03-CV-2221-L (N.D. Tex. Apr. 27, 2004)

Opinion

No. 3:03-CV-2221-L.

April 27, 2004


FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE


Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and an order of the District Court, this case has been referred to the United States Magistrate Judge. The findings, conclusions and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge follow:

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS I. Nature of the Case:

Plaintiff brings this complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis. II. Parties:

Plaintiff was confined in the Kaufman County Jail when the events in his complaint occurred. Defendants are Jail Administrator Carla Stone, Sergeant Deona Kirkpatrick and Nurse Carolyn Polege.

III. Statement of the Case:

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants are responsible for unsanitary conditions in the Kaufman County Jail. He alleges that as a result of these conditions, he developed a staph infection and sustained numerous spider bites. He also states Nurse Polege failed to provide adequate medical care and that Defendants charged him for medical bills.

IV. Preliminary Screening

Plaintiff's complaint is subject to preliminary screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. That section provides in pertinent part:

The court shall review . . . as soon as practicable after docketing, a complaint in a civil action in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity [and] [o]n review, the court shall identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint (1) is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from suit.
28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a) and (b); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

Both sections 1915A(b) and 1915(e)(2)(B) provide for sua sponte dismissal if the Court finds the complaint is "frivolous" or that it "fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted." A complaint is frivolous if it "lacks an arguable basis either in law or fact." Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989).

V. Discussion

1. Unsanitary Conditions

Jail officials must provide "humane conditions of confinement, ensuring that inmates receive adequate food, clothing, shelter, . . . medical care," and hygiene. Palmer v. Johnson, 193 F.3d 346, 351-52 (5th Cir. 1999). Plaintiff alleges that due to unsanitary conditions in the jail, he contracted a staph infection and was bitten numerous times by spiders. He states he was required to have one of these bites lanced. Taking Plaintiff's allegations as true, the Court is unable at this stage to find the claim frivolous. This claim should therefore be served.

2. Inadequate Medical Care

In response to the Magistrate Judge's Questionnaire, Plaintiff states that Nurse Polege "failed to give medical treatment to inmates." (Magistrate Judge's Questionnaire, Answer No. 1C). For an inmate to establish a § 1983 claim of deliberate indifference to a serious medical need, he must allege a deprivation of medical care sufficiently serious to show that the state has abdicated a constitutionally-required responsibility to attend to his medical needs, and that the prison officials knew of and disregarded an excessive risk to inmate health or safety. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 833 (1994). The deliberate indifference must rise to a level of unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain proscribed by the Eight Amendment. Id. at 835-47. Negligence, unsuccessful medical treatment, or medical malpractice does not give rise to a § 1983 cause of action, and an inmate's disagreement with medical treatment is insufficient to establish deliberate indifference. Stewart v. Murphy, 174 F.3d 530, 534 (5th Cir. 1999); see also Varnado v. Lynaugh, 920 F.2d 320, 321 (5th Cir. 1991) (finding disagreement as to the correct medical treatment does not constitute an actionable civil rights claim).

Plaintiff's claims in this case do not rise to the level of a constitutional violation. Plaintiff states he was sent to the hospital to be lanced because Nurse Polege failed to provide adequate medical care. The record shows that Plaintiff received at least seventeen doctor visits and was prescribed medication on at least ten occasions. Although Plaintiff may have wanted different medical treatment or may have disagreed with his medical treatment, this claim does not rise to the level of a constitutional violation. Plaintiff's claims of inadequate medical care should be dismissed.

3. Medical Fees

Plaintiff complains that Defendants charged him $340.00 for medical services he received at Kaufman Jail. The Kaufman Jail payment policy is similar to "co-pay" policies or fee-for-service programs under which inmates must bear part of the cost of their treatment. Courts have found these policies constitutionally permissible if they do not interfere with timely and effective treatment of serious medical needs. See Piper v. Alford, No. 3:02-CV-2640-P, 2003 WL 21350215, (N.D. Tex. June 4, 2003) (finding jail policy requiring payment for medical services did not raise constitutional issue); Bihms v. Klevenhagen, 928 F. Supp. 717, 718 (S.D. Tex. June 11, 1996) (same); Reynolds v. Bagner, 128 F.3d 166, 174 (3d Cir. 1997) (finding co-pay policy constitutional); Shapley v. Nevada Bd. of state Prison Comm'rs, 766 F.2d 404 (9th Cir. 1985) (same); Reynolds v. Wagner, 936 F. Supp. 1216, 1225-1227 (E.D. Pa. 1996) (finding fee-for-service-program constitutional).

In this case, Plaintiff was seen by medical personnel at least seventeen times between January 7, 2002, and May 23, 2003. (Plaintiff's Exhibit to Magistrate Judge's Questionnaire). Plaintiff incurred charges of $340.00 for these medical visits and for medications. As of May 23, 2003, Plaintiff's exhibit shows he paid twelve cents of these charges. The record reflects, therefore, that Plaintiff received medical care despite his inability to pay the medical charges. Further, Plaintiff has made no claims either in his complaint or in response to the magistrate judge's questionnaire that he was denied medical treatment because of his inability to pay. Plaintiff has failed to allege a cognizable claim for relief under § 1983, his claims should therefore be denied. RECOMMENDATION

The Court recommends that Plaintiff's claims regarding unsanitary jail conditions be served. The Court further recommends that Plaintiff's remaining claims be dismissed with prejudice as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b).

INSTRUCTIONS FOR SERVICE AND NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL/OBJECT

The United States District Clerk shall serve a copy of these findings, conclusions and recommendation on Plaintiff by mailing a copy to him by United States Mail. Pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1), any party who desires to object to these findings, conclusions and recommendation must serve and file written objections within ten days after being served with a copy. A party filing objections must specifically identify those findings, conclusions or recommendation to which objections are being made. The District Court need not consider frivolous, conclusory or general objections. A party's failure to file such written objections to these proposed findings, conclusions and recommendation shall bar that party from a de novo determination by the District Court. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150, 106 S.Ct. 466, 472 (1985). Additionally, any failure to file written objections to the proposed findings, conclusions and recommendation within ten days after being served with a copy shall bar the aggrieved party from appealing the factual findings and legal conclusions of the Magistrate Judge that are accepted by the District Court, except upon grounds of plain error. Douglass v. United Services Auto. Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1417 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc).


Summaries of

Vaughn v. Stone

United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Dallas Division
Apr 27, 2004
No. 3:03-CV-2221-L (N.D. Tex. Apr. 27, 2004)
Case details for

Vaughn v. Stone

Case Details

Full title:CECIL M. VAUGHN, Plaintiff, v. CARLA STONE, ET AL., Defendants

Court:United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Dallas Division

Date published: Apr 27, 2004

Citations

No. 3:03-CV-2221-L (N.D. Tex. Apr. 27, 2004)