Summary
This United States District Court order screens a pro se inmate’s Second Amended Complaint filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging an Eighth Amendment violation for failure to protect. After reviewing the factual allegations, the Court grants leave to file the amended complaint but dismisses claims against all defendants except Officer Harrold, finding insufficient evidence of constitutional violations by the others. The Court also denies the plaintiff’s motions for appointed counsel and declares his renewed in forma pauperis petition moot. The order concludes with procedural directives regarding service, answer deadlines, and discovery.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Plaintiff stated a sufficient Eighth Amendment failure‑to‑protect claim against Sergeant Harrold.
- Whether Plaintiff stated sufficient claims against the remaining defendants under §1983.
Holdings
- The court finds that Plaintiff has alleged enough facts to proceed with an Eighth Amendment failure‑to‑protect claim against Defendant Harrold.
- The court concludes that Plaintiff has not stated a viable §1983 claim against Defendants Baker, Carpentier, Novak, Little, or McCune.
Key quotations
“For a state official to be held liable for failure to protect, a plaintiff must satisfy a test that contains both an objective and a subjective component.” (at 1)
Factual background
While incarcerated at Lawrence Correctional Center, Plaintiff Rickey Carter was assaulted by his cellmate. During the assault, prison staff Carpentier and Novak allegedly falsified logbook entries and failed to respond to Plaintiff's grievance, while Sergeant Harrold allegedly heard Plaintiff's cries for help but falsely claimed to have investigated.
Procedural history
Plaintiff filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. §1983 and subsequently moved to amend the complaint. The district court screened the complaint and issued an order granting the amendment and dismissing claims against all defendants except Harrold.