Girard v. Collao

Background

Chauncey Girard, who was incarcerated at Southport Correctional Facility, brought a civil-rights action without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. His second amended complaint alleged constitutional violations arising from events at Green Haven Correctional Facility between approximately September 2016 and March 2018. The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal when a complaint does not state a legally sufficient claim.

Girard alleged that medical defendants and prison personnel were deliberately indifferent to his shoulder, back, stomach, and H-Pylori-related medical problems in violation of the Eighth Amendment. He also alleged First Amendment retaliation for filing grievances, improper handling of a prison grievance, denial of access to the courts through interference with legal mail, and false confinement in keeplock under the Fourth Amendment.

Court’s analysis

The court held that Girard’s medical-care allegations did not plausibly show deliberate indifference. That claim requires facts indicating both an objectively serious medical need and that the defendant knew of and disregarded a substantial risk of serious harm. The court found insufficient allegations that delays in providing MRI results worsened Girard’s shoulder injury, that the shoulder searches caused the claimed permanent damage, or that the defendants consciously disregarded serious risks involving his back, stomach, or H-Pylori infection. The court also explained that disagreements over medical judgment generally do not establish a constitutional violation. The medical-care claims were dismissed without prejudice.

The court also dismissed the retaliation claims without prejudice. Although filing a grievance is protected activity and keeplock confinement or denial of sick call could qualify as adverse action, Girard did not plead enough facts connecting his grievances to the alleged retaliation. The court found the allegations conclusory, including because Girard often did not identify the person who denied sick call, the specific grievance involved, or facts showing retaliatory motivation.

The court dismissed the grievance-handling claim without prejudice because prisoners do not have a constitutional right to a prison grievance procedure or to have grievances investigated. Girard’s access-to-courts claim also failed because the allegations suggested, at most, carelessness in handling his mail and did not show that he suffered actual injury to an otherwise meritorious legal claim. His false-imprisonment claim failed because he did not allege that the keeplock confinement lacked a legitimate reason or that he was denied the required due-process review.

Ruling

Judge Nelson S. Roman granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The court granted Girard leave to file a third amended complaint consistent with the opinion by October 12, 2020. The court stated that failure to file the amended complaint within that time, without good cause, would result in dismissal of the claims with prejudice. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion and mail the opinion and order to Girard.