Summary
This United States District Court order grants the pro se plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis and conducts a mandatory statutory screening of his prisoner civil rights complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The court finds that the complaint adequately states Eighth Amendment claims for sexual harassment and deliberate indifference to serious medical needs against specific defendants, while dismissing claims against other defendants and failing to state First Amendment or state law claims. The plaintiff is given twenty-one days to either elect to proceed immediately on the surviving claims or file an amended complaint to cure pleading deficiencies.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the plaintiff's complaint states a claim under 42 U.S.C. §1983 for an Eighth Amendment violation based on sexual harassment by Williams.
- Whether the plaintiff's complaint states a claim under 42 U.S.C. §1983 for deliberate indifference by Quitner, Russel, Agarin, and Callis.
Holdings
- The court finds that plaintiff has adequately stated a claim under the Eighth Amendment for sexual harassment against Williams.
- The court finds that plaintiff has adequately stated a claim under the Eighth Amendment for deliberate indifference against Quitner, Russel, Agarin, and Callis.
- The complaint does not state any claim for relief against those defendants.
Key quotations
“A claim “is [legally] frivolous where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.”” (at 3)
““[A] person ‘subjects’ another to the deprivation of a constitutional right, within the meaning of section 1983, if he does an affirmative act, participates in another’s affirmative acts or omits to perform an act which he is legally required to do that causes the deprivation of which complaint is made.”” (at 6)
Factual background
The plaintiff, a state inmate, alleges that a prison employee sexually harassed him and that prison medical staff were deliberately indifferent to his serious mental health needs. He also alleges failures to investigate grievances and denial of medical records.
Procedural history
Plaintiff filed a civil rights action pro se; the district court conducted a statutory screening under 28 U.S.C. §1915A and issued this order.