Ricketts v. Maggard

Background

David E. Ricketts, who was incarcerated at Federal Medical Center-Rochester, filed this civil-rights action against Officer Maggard, B. Birkolz, Jessica Feda, and Dr. Nassaralla. He alleged three types of claims: failure to protect under the Eighth Amendment, retaliation, and deliberate indifference to serious medical needs under the Eighth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments.

A magistrate judge recommended dismissing Ricketts’s claims against Dr. Nassaralla for failure to state a claim and denying Ricketts’s motion for a preliminary injunction. Ricketts objected. After the recommendation was issued, the magistrate judge treated Ricketts’s filing titled “Bivens Action Motion TORT CLAIM” as an amended complaint. The district court therefore reviewed the amended complaint rather than only the original complaint.

Court’s analysis

The court reviewed the challenged portions of the recommendation independently. It explained that prisoner complaints against governmental entities or their employees must be screened under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and dismissed if they fail to state a claim for relief. At this stage, the court accepted factual allegations as true and asked whether they plausibly supported liability.

As to Dr. Nassaralla, the amended complaint alleged that Dr. Nassaralla was Ricketts’s primary caregiver, acted under federal law, knew from Ricketts’s appointments that he faced a risk of pressure sores, could order medical devices and tests, and was deliberately indifferent by failing to order the devices and tests Ricketts requested. The court held that these allegations did not plausibly show that Dr. Nassaralla knew of and deliberately disregarded Ricketts’s serious medical needs with the highly culpable state of mind required for an Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference claim. The court therefore concluded that the amended complaint did not cure the pleading deficiencies identified in the recommendation.

The court also considered the preliminary-injunction request. Although some defendants had waived service after the recommendation was issued, the court explained that notice of a request for a preliminary injunction is different from service of a summons and complaint. The court agreed that Ricketts’s current motion did not establish grounds for a preliminary injunction and found no clear error in the recommendation to deny it.

Disposition

The court overruled Ricketts’s objections and adopted the March 21, 2019 report and recommendation. It denied Ricketts’s motion for a preliminary injunction and dismissed without prejudice his claims against Dr. Nassaralla under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). The opinion does not state a disposition of the claims against Officer Maggard, B. Birkolz, or Jessica Feda.