Turner v. Ghaly

Background

Anthony Dawayne Lee Turner, an incarcerated person proceeding without a lawyer, filed a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court reviewed his amended complaint under the federal prisoner-screening statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which requires the court to identify claims that may proceed and dismiss claims that are frivolous, fail to state a claim, or seek money from an immune defendant.

Turner described a medical-care claim arising after he was diagnosed with a blood clot and returned from a hospital. He alleged that Dr. Sabry Ghaly ordered blood-thinner medication and said he would note an allergy in Turner’s medical chart. Turner also alleged that Ghaly and nurse Maya Paley failed to move him to a lower bunk and lower tier; refused to provide a mobility-impaired vest; and failed to provide treatment for pain, swelling and fluid in his knee and leg, dry skin, and infection sores. He sought damages.

Claims the Court Allowed to Proceed

The court concluded that, liberally construing the amended complaint, Turner stated a cognizable Eighth Amendment claim against Ghaly and Paley for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. Deliberate indifference means that a prison official knew of a substantial risk of serious harm and failed to take reasonable steps to address it. The surviving allegations concerned the failure to provide a lower-bunk or lower-tier medical accommodation and the alleged failure to treat Turner’s leg pain and swelling, dry skin, and infection.

The court determined that the alleged failure to order a disability vest did not state an Eighth Amendment claim because Turner did not allege facts showing that the vest addressed a medical need.

Claims Dismissed

The court dismissed Turner’s claims under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. The court had previously explained that an institutional defendant was required for those claims, because individual prison workers are not proper defendants under those statutes. It had also explained that Turner needed to identify his disability and the accommodations that were needed but not provided. The amended complaint did not correct those deficiencies.

The conclusion states that all other claims and defendants were dismissed. The order does not specify that these dismissals were with or without prejudice.

Order and Case Status

The court ordered the clerk to issue a summons and directed the United States Marshal to serve the amended complaint and case documents on Dr. Sabry Ghaly and nurse Maya Paley without requiring Turner to prepay service fees. It set deadlines for defendants’ summary-judgment or other dispositive motions, Turner’s opposition, and any reply. It also allowed discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and reminded Turner of his responsibilities for prosecuting the case and keeping the court informed of address changes.

This was a preliminary screening and service order, not a final decision on whether Turner will ultimately prevail on the surviving Eighth Amendment claim.