Wortham v. Waldura

Background

Freddie Fernando Wortham, identified as a detainee, filed a civil-rights complaint without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court had previously dismissed his original complaint with permission to amend. Wortham then filed an amended complaint. The caption also listed Josh Blake as a second plaintiff, but Wortham stated that Blake’s name had been added by mistake.

Wortham alleged that he received inadequate medical care at Santa Rita Jail. According to the allegations described by the court, he spoke with an intake nurse, later experienced swelling in his face and neck after receiving either a multivitamin or aspirin, received an injection from medical staff, and was taken to an outside hospital when the swelling continued. He alleged that the nurse, other medical personnel, and guards violated his rights under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Court’s analysis

Because Wortham was a detainee seeking relief from governmental officers or employees, the court screened the amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. At this stage, the court had to identify claims that could proceed and dismiss claims that were frivolous, failed to state a claim, or sought money from an immune defendant.

The court explained that a pretrial detainee’s inadequate-medical-care claim arises under the Fourteenth Amendment and is evaluated under an objective deliberate-indifference standard. Wortham needed to allege that each defendant made an intentional decision, that the resulting conditions created a substantial risk of serious harm, that the defendant failed to take reasonable available measures despite the objectively apparent risk, and that this failure caused injury. The conduct must be more than negligent, although it need not involve a defendant’s subjective intent to cause harm.

The court also explained that supervisors are not automatically liable for their subordinates’ actions. A supervisor may be liable under § 1983 based on personal involvement, a sufficient causal connection, or culpable conduct such as acquiescing in the violation or acting with reckless or callous indifference.

Ruling

The court concluded that the amended complaint repeated the original complaint and did not correct the deficiencies previously identified. In particular, Wortham did not explain how the defendants should have known that he had an allergy, given the allegation that even he was unaware of it. He also did not provide enough allegations showing how the other defendants were involved or how each defendant’s conduct violated his constitutional rights.

The amended complaint was dismissed with leave to amend. The court ordered Wortham to file an entirely new complaint labeled “SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT” within 28 days after service of the order. The new complaint must include all claims he wished to pursue and could not incorporate the original complaint by reference. The court stated that failure to amend within the required period may result in dismissal of the case. The clerk was ordered to remove Josh Blake from the docket. Judge Robert M. Illman also directed Wortham to keep the court informed of any address change and to comply with court orders.