Jennings v. Sheppard

Eric J. Jennings, Plaintiff, v. Ann Sheppard; Ms. Howard; Brian Kendall; and LCI Medical, Defendants.

No. 2:21-cv-00449-JFA-MGB

United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Charleston Division

February 22, 2022

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

MARY GORDON UNITED STATES MAJISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff Eric J. Jennings (“Plaintiff”), a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, brings this civil action pursuant 42 U.S.C § 1983, alleging cruel and unusual punishment in violation of his Eighth Amendment rights. Under 28 U.S.C § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.) the undersigned is authorized to review the pleadings in this case and submit recommendations to the United States District Judge. For the reasons discussed below, the undersigned recommends that this action be summarily dismissed.

BACKGROUND

The instant case is premised on Defendants' purported failure to provide Plaintiff adequate medical care while he was incarcerated at Lieber Correctional Institution (“Lieber” or “LCI”). The undersigned notes at the outset, however, that the true scope of Plaintiff's claims is difficult to ascertain due to the disorganized, incoherent nature of his allegations. Indeed, the Complaint^[1] employs a kitchen sink approach, setting forth a long list of vague injuries and medical conditions without offering any meaningful context. For example, Plaintiff states:

Medical is trying to keep me from getting any help[.] I wrote plenty [of] staff request[s] and never had any good results. I have had strokes and irregular heartbeats that sound[] like a marchin[g] band, my ears have this ringing sound and I can feel pressure pushing through my veins in my head. [I]t also feels as if my brain and heart just click off and on. . . . These nurses are refusing to send me to the hospital. It feels as if the Wardens and medical along with mental health are using me as a . . . lab rat.

(Dkt. No. 1 at 6.) The Complaint also references blood clots, burning pains in Plaintiff's chest, lung issues, brain damage, a brain hemorrhage, stress, anxiety, and problems with Plaintiff's bones. (See Dkt. No. 1 at 6-7; Dkt. No. 9; Dkt. No. 10.) The Complaint does not, however, clarify when or how Plaintiff developed these conditions and, more importantly, the specific circumstances surrounding Defendants' apparent denial of Plaintiff's request for medical treatment in relation thereto.

Based on the undersigned's review, Plaintiff does appear to focus on one incident in particular, although he fails to clearly link the event to any of his purported medical conditions. Specifically, Plaintiff claims that on December 7, 2020, he was assaulted by a group of inmates and sustained a cut above his eye and two stab wounds to his body. (Dkt. No. 1 at 5-6, 8, 11; Dkt. No. 10 at 1.) After the attack, the inmates apparently put Plaintiff in the shower and threatened to kill him if he reported the incident. (Dkt. No. 10.) What came next is somewhat unclear, as Plaintiff's account is inconsistent and difficult to follow; however, it appears that Defendant Howard, a correctional officer at Lieber, was made aware of the incident and eventually called LCI's first response team, which arrived approximately fifteen minutes later to administer care to Plaintiff. (See Id. at 2.) Plaintiff claims that Defendant Howard was delayed in responding to his injuries-noting that she was “trying to play on [his] nerves by making [him] answer . . . questions”-although he expressly acknowledges that he ultimately “receive[d] some medical treatment.” (Id.)

Nevertheless, Plaintiff claims that he still asked to be taken to a hospital to see “outside personnel” following the attack because he was concerned that LCI's medical team would purposefully withhold proper treatment as part of an underlying conspiracy to kill him. (See Dkt. No. 1 at 11; see also Dkt. No. 9, stating that “it seems as if these people are premeditating my death. . . .”) Indeed, the Complaint states that Turbeville Correctional Institution had intentionally sent a certain inmate to Lieber for the very purpose of instigating the attack and “bust[ing] the blood clots” in Plaintiff's head. (See Dkt. No. 1 at 6-7, alleging that the December 2020 attack was intended to kill Plaintiff, and that LCI “was just trying to have somebody hit [Plaintiff] and parolize [sic] [him].”) Thus, Plaintiff claims that Lieber's medical personnel denied his request to go to the hospital in an effort to “cover up” their “dirt” and “mistakes, ” and, instead, “tossed” him in the Restrictive Housing Unit (“RHU”) for several weeks without further medical treatment. (See Id. at 6-8; see also Id. at 11, alleging that Defendants knew Plaintiff would “expose” their actions if he went to the hospital).

The undersigned reiterates that while the December 2020 attack provides a possible window into Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claims, the circumstances underlying Defendants' purported disregard for Plaintiff's medical needs mostly remain unclear. This is further complicated by Plaintiff's assertion that Defendants' conspiracy to harm him actually began before December 2020-as LCI nurses apparently denied Plaintiff's previous requests to visit a hospital-and continued thereafter. (See Id. at 6, 16.) As a result, Plaintiff's allegations of inadequate medical treatment leave the Court with little temporal and factual context. Notwithstanding this lack of clarity, however, the Complaint contends that Plaintiff is entitled to $350, 000 for the physical harm and emotional distress resulting from Defendants' alleged history of ignoring Plaintiff's purported medical needs. (Id. at 14.) The Complaint also requests that Plaintiff be taken to the hospital. (Id.)

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Upon reviewing Plaintiff's initial filings, the undersigned issued an order dated February 24, 2021, informing Plaintiff that his case was not in proper form, as he had failed to submit the necessary service documents and a financial certificate in support of his motion to proceed in forma pauperis. (Dkt. No. 6.) In light of Plaintiff's pro se status, however, the undersigned granted him twenty-one days to cure these deficiencies by filing the outstanding information with the Court. The order also warned Plaintiff that he must immediately notify the Clerk of Court regarding any changes to his address to ensure that he received orders and/or other instructions specifying his filing deadlines. (Id. at 2.) The undersigned emphasized that if Plaintiff missed a deadline for failure to comply with this order, his case may be dismissed.

Plaintiff complied with the undersigned's instructions and filed the requested documents on March 11, 2021. (Dkt. Nos. 11, 11-1.) With the case in proper form, the undersigned then issued a second order, notifying Plaintiff that the Complaint (Dkt. Nos. 1, 9, 10) was subject to summary dismissal for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, and giving him an opportunity to cure the pleading deficiencies by filing an amended complaint with the Court. (Dkt. No. 13.) However, the order was eventually returned to the Court as “undeliverable, ” as Plaintiff had been released from Lieber Correctional Institution and failed to notify the Court of his new address. (Dkt. No. 16.) As a result, Plaintiff's deadline to file an amended complaint lapsed.

On August 25, 2021, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Change of Address (Dkt. No. 17), providing the Court with a new mailing address at the Clarendon County Detention Center. Notwithstanding Plaintiff's failure to timely notify the Court of his release from Lieber or his new address, the undersigned allowed Plaintiff one more opportunity, in an abundance of caution, to file an amended complaint. (Dkt. No. 18.) The undersigned resent a copy of the most recent order (Dkt. No. 13) to Plaintiff's new address and gave him twenty-one days to cure the identified pleading deficiencies in his Complaint. (Dkt. No. 19.) Despite this extension, Plaintiff has not filed any amended pleading or factual allegations, and the time to comply with the undersigned's order has once again expired.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

Under established local procedure in this judicial district, a careful review has been made of the pro se Complaint pursuant to the procedural provisions of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), Pub. L. No 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321 (1996). This action has been filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, which permits an indigent litigant to commence an action in federal court without prepaying the administrative costs of proceeding with the lawsuit, and is also governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which requires the court to review a complaint filed by a prisoner that seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity.

To protect against possible abuses, the court must dismiss any prisoner complaints, or portions of complaints, that are frivolous or malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). A complaint is frivolous if it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 31 (1992). Indeed, a claim based on a meritless legal theory may be dismissed sua sponte “at any time” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324-25 (1989). The United States Supreme Court has explained that the statute “is designed largely to discourage the filing of, and waste of judicial and private resources upon, baseless lawsuits.” Id. at 326.

As to failure to state a claim, a complaint filed in federal court must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing...