Jenkins v. Walls

Background

Darrell W. Jenkins, who was incarcerated in LSCI-Butner and proceeding without a lawyer and without paying the filing fee, sued Bryan Walls and other officials associated with FCI Otisville. The opinion describes the action as filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, but the court analyzed the claims as a damages action under Bivens against federal employees. Jenkins alleged that the defendants violated his constitutional rights by providing inadequate medical care.

Jenkins alleged that he had a degenerative nerve condition causing muscle deterioration and limited mobility. After a podiatrist recommended that he stop wearing a walking boot and put pressure on his foot, Jenkins said he fractured a metatarsal within about 30 minutes of doing so. He also alleged that medical staff did not adequately address his concerns about Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease, that he had not received enough information about his condition, and that officials denied requests for a medical transfer.

The amended complaint stated that Jenkins had received numerous X-rays, an MRI, examinations by specialists, and a biopsy. He alleged that his condition had not been properly diagnosed or treated and that the defendants’ actions might have allowed it to worsen.

Legal standard

Because Jenkins was incarcerated and sought relief without paying the filing fee, the court screened his amended complaint under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. The court was required to dismiss claims that were frivolous, malicious, failed to state a legally sufficient claim, or sought money from an immune defendant. A complaint must contain enough factual detail to make liability plausible, rather than merely possible, although courts read complaints filed without a lawyer generously.

For an inadequate-medical-care claim under the Eighth Amendment, a prisoner must allege both a sufficiently serious medical condition and that officials acted with deliberate indifference. Deliberate indifference means more than negligence, an accidental failure to provide care, or a disagreement about the proper diagnosis or treatment; it requires facts suggesting that the official knew about and disregarded a substantial risk of serious harm.

Court’s analysis

The court concluded that the amended complaint failed for the same reasons identified in Chief Judge McMahon’s earlier order. That order had found that the original complaint and its attachments described treatment by numerous doctors and specialists, repeated testing, medical-assistive devices, and regular communications with health-services staff. Those allegations suggested a disagreement between Jenkins and his doctors about the diagnosis and appropriate treatment, rather than deliberate indifference.

The amended complaint did not cure that problem. The court said Jenkins’s allegations showed frustration that medical staff had been unable to diagnose him, would not diagnose him with Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease, would not provide the information he wanted, or would not authorize a transfer to another facility. The court held that these allegations did not show that the defendants knew of and disregarded an excessive risk to his health. The court also noted that materials attached to the original complaint indicated that Jenkins had been diagnosed with polyneuropathy and had undergone extensive testing related to Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease, although those tests were inconclusive as to that specific disease.

Disposition

The court dismissed the amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted. It declined to give Jenkins another opportunity to amend because he had already been allowed to amend and the defects could not be cured by further amendment. The Clerk was directed to mail the order to Jenkins and record service on the docket.