Jenkins v. Walls

Background

Darrell W. Jenkins brought this action without a lawyer under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, alleging that officials at Otisville Federal Correctional Institution were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. The defendants named in the opinion are Bryan Walls, Alfonso Linley, Jayne Vander Hey-Wright, J. Pettrucci, Dees, LeMaster, Maldanado, and Van Blankensee. Jenkins sought money damages and preliminary and permanent injunctive relief prohibiting retaliation.

Jenkins alleged that he had nerve degeneration and muscle weakness in his feet and legs, that officials had been unable to determine his condition, and that they delayed or denied necessary medical care. He stated that he was permanently confined to a wheelchair and that his condition might be irreversible. The complaint included 99 pages of medical records, emails, and other documents. Those materials showed that Jenkins had been seen by multiple doctors and specialists, received repeated tests—including magnetic-resonance imaging, nerve studies, computed-tomography scans, X-rays, laboratory tests, consultations, and a nerve biopsy—and received a walking boot, diabetic orthotic shoes, and a wheelchair.

Screening standard

Because Jenkins was a prisoner proceeding without prepaying the filing fee, the court screened his complaint under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. The court explained that it had to dismiss claims that were frivolous, malicious, failed to state a legally valid claim, sought money from an immune defendant, or fell outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. The court also explained that pleadings filed without a lawyer are read liberally, but they still must provide enough facts to make a claim plausible.

Medical-care claim

The court applied the Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference standard. Jenkins had to allege both an objectively serious medical condition and that each defendant acted with a sufficiently culpable state of mind—roughly, awareness of a substantial risk of serious harm and disregard of that risk. Negligence, an accidental failure to provide adequate care, or a disagreement about the proper diagnosis or treatment would not be enough.

The court stated that Jenkins’s condition appeared to satisfy the objective seriousness requirement. It nevertheless concluded that the complaint and its attachments did not plausibly show that the defendants knew of and disregarded an excessive risk to his health. The records showed extensive medical evaluation, testing, treatment, assistive devices, and responses from medical staff. They also showed that Jenkins’s concerns about Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease had been addressed and that testing confirmed polyneuropathy but was inconclusive as to Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease.

The court concluded that Jenkins’s allegations primarily reflected a disagreement between him and his doctors about his diagnosis and appropriate treatment. It therefore dismissed the deliberate-indifference claim for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

Preliminary injunction

Jenkins also requested a preliminary injunction directing the defendants not to retaliate against him. A preliminary injunction is an emergency court order issued before final judgment. The court held that Jenkins had not shown either a likelihood of success on the merits or sufficiently serious questions warranting relief combined with a strongly favorable balance of hardships. The court denied the request for a preliminary injunction.

Leave to amend and disposition

Although the court was doubtful that Jenkins could state a valid claim, it gave him an opportunity to amend because he was proceeding without an attorney. The amended complaint had to identify the relevant people, describe what each defendant did or failed to do, provide relevant dates and locations, explain how the conduct violated his rights, describe his injuries, and state the relief sought. The court stated that the amended complaint would replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint.

The conclusion directs Jenkins to submit an amended complaint within 60 days and warns that failure to comply, absent good cause, would result in dismissal for failure to state a claim. An earlier section says the amendment period is 30 days. Chief Judge Colleen McMahon also directed the Clerk to mail Jenkins a copy of the order and noted that no summons would issue at that time.