Roundtree v. Jane Doe 1

Background

Rashaun Roundtree filed the action without a lawyer and without prepaying the filing fee. He alleged that events occurred at the Orange County Jail in August 2019. The defendants named in the caption were Orange County, Dr. John Doe, Nurse Jane Doe #1, Jane Doe, and Nurse Jane Doe #3.

Roundtree alleged that he sought treatment on August 15, 2019, for a painful, swollen area on his leg that he described as a spider bite. He returned several times because the swelling and pain increased and the antibiotics did not appear to work. A culture later showed a methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infection. He alleged that his knee became swollen to the size of a golf ball, that the medication caused stomach upset and dizziness, and that the leg should have been drained and treated with a different antibiotic.

The medical records attached to the complaint showed that he was prescribed antibiotics, that the medication and dosages were changed, that a wound culture was taken, that wound care was provided, and that a doctor counseled him about side effects.

Legal standards and analysis

The court understood Roundtree to be asserting a claim that correctional officials were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs under the Eighth or Fourteenth Amendment through 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Deliberate indifference means that an official failed to take reasonable steps despite knowing, or—in the case of a pretrial detainee—having reason to know, that the person faced an excessive health or safety risk. The court stated that Roundtree appeared to have been a pretrial detainee, so it applied the more generous Fourteenth Amendment standard.

The court explained that an inadequate-medical-care claim has objective and subjective components. The objective component asks whether the medical condition was sufficiently serious. The subjective component asks whether officials had the required culpable state of mind and disregarded a serious risk. The court concluded that Roundtree did not plausibly satisfy either component. It emphasized that he was repeatedly seen and treated between August 15 and August 26, 2019; that his antibiotic was changed when it did not work; and that his medication was adjusted after the culture revealed the infection. The court also held that his disagreement with the choice of antibiotic or the decision not to drain the leg did not amount to deliberate indifference.

Claims against Orange County and individual defendants

The court held that a claim against Orange County could not rest only on alleged wrongdoing by an employee or agent. Roundtree had to allege that a county policy, custom, or practice caused the constitutional violation. The court found no such facts in the amended complaint.

The court also stated that a § 1983 claim requires each individual defendant’s direct and personal involvement. A person cannot be held liable merely because that person employs or supervises someone who allegedly violated the plaintiff’s rights. Because the caption identified only Doe defendants, the court directed Roundtree, if he continued pursuing claims against individuals, to name them in the caption and provide facts showing each person’s personal involvement.

Disposition

Although the court found that the amended complaint failed to state a claim, it granted Roundtree one final opportunity to amend because he was proceeding without a lawyer. The court granted leave to file a second amended complaint complying with the stated requirements within 60 days of the order. The filing had to be titled “Second Amended Complaint” and include docket number 22-CV-1697 (CS). No summons would issue at that time.

The court stated that if Roundtree failed to comply within the permitted time and could not show good cause, the action would be dismissed for failure to state a claim. It also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for an appeal.