Culbreth v. Wellpath

Background

Kareem Culbreth, who was detained at Orange County Jail, filed this case without a lawyer against Wellpath and Dr. P. He proceeded without paying the filing fee upfront. Culbreth sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing claims against people acting under state authority for violating federal rights.

Culbreth alleged that, on December 22, 2023, Dr. P. made comments that Culbreth viewed as offensive and comparable to sexual abuse. The complaint described Dr. P. holding blue gloves and Vaseline and responding to Culbreth's question by saying, “something you might like.” Culbreth alleged that the comments were made in front of other people. He described feeling mentally scarred, said the incident changed how he viewed doctors, requested a new doctor, and sought money damages.

Federal Claims

The court screened the complaint under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, which requires courts to dismiss certain prisoner complaints that are frivolous, seek relief from an immune defendant, or fail to state a legally sufficient claim. The court assumed, only for purposes of this order, that Wellpath was acting as a state actor when providing medical services at the jail.

The court held that verbal abuse, threats, and intimidation by themselves, without physical injury or other damage, do not violate the Constitution. Because Culbreth did not allege that Dr. P.'s statements caused physical harm or injury, the court concluded that he did not state a claim under Section 1983. The court therefore dismissed Culbreth's claims against Dr. P. and Wellpath for failure to state a claim. The court did not address any possible claim that Wellpath could be liable as Dr. P.'s employer.

State-Law Claims and Amendment

After dismissing the federal claims, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction—the court's authority to hear related state-law claims—over any state-law claims Culbreth might have intended to assert. The court also denied leave to amend because it determined that the defects in the complaint could not be corrected through amendment.

Disposition

Judge Laura Taylor Swain dismissed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims, and terminated the other pending matters. The court directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment. It certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal.