Samuel v. Votaw

Samuel v. Votaw · United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky · August 5, 2025 · No. 5:25-cv-00021-GFVT

Summary

This memorandum opinion and order screens an inmate’s pro se amended civil rights complaint alleging deliberate indifference to serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. The court dismisses claims against several prison administrators and officials for failing to allege sufficient factual support or direct involvement in the plaintiff's treatment, while permitting claims against two care providers to proceed. The court also denies a premature motion to appoint an expert witness and directs the United States Marshals Service to serve summons on the remaining defendants.

Court
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky
Writing for the Court
Gregory F. Van Tatenhove
Jurisdiction
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky
Decision date
August 5, 2025
Docket number
5:25-cv-00021-GFVT
Procedural posture
Motion to amend complaint; motion to dismiss claims under 42 U.S.C. §1983; motion to appoint expert denied.
Precedential value
nonprecedential
Disposition
other

Topics

section 1983civil rightsprisoners rightsfourteenth amendmentcivil procedure

Practice areas

civil rightscivil procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Samuel's §1983 claims against Defendants Price, Hughes, Patterson, Burkett, and Krow fail to state a claim on which relief can be granted.
  2. Whether Samuel's §1983 claims against Defendants Votaw and Logan may proceed.
  3. Whether the motion to appoint an expert witness should be denied as premature.

Holdings

  1. The court dismissed the claims against Price, Hughes, Patterson, Burkett, and Krow for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. §§1915A(b)(1) and 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
  2. The court allowed Samuel to proceed with his §1983 claims against Shelly Conyers Votaw and Ms. Logan.
  3. The motion to appoint an expert witness is denied as premature.

Key quotations

Simply denying an administrative grievance is insufficient to establish liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (R. 23)
Defendants “can only be held liable for their own conduct” under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (R. 23)

Factual background

James L. Samuel, an inmate at the Lee Adjustment Center, alleged that prison officials at the Northpoint Training Center and Little Sandy Correctional Center failed to provide adequate treatment for urinary tract and prostate infections, leading to sepsis. He claimed denial of effective antibiotics, lack of specialist care, and refusal of recommended scans, asserting deliberate indifference in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments.

Procedural history

Samuel, a pro se inmate, filed a civil rights complaint. The court screened the original complaint, granted leave to amend, and after reviewing the amended pleading dismissed claims against five defendants for failure to state a claim while allowing claims against Votaw and Logan to proceed. The court also denied a motion to appoint an expert witness as premature.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…