Dearold White v. Latoya Hughes et al.

Summary

The court screened Plaintiff DeArold White’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. It allowed an Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference claim against Defendants Bowden and Brown and a First Amendment retaliation claim against Brown to proceed, while dismissing the other named defendants. The court also denied Plaintiff’s motion for appointed counsel and directed service of the surviving claims.

Holdings

1. White's allegations were sufficient to state an Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference claim against Bowden and Brown, so that claim may proceed.
2. White's allegation that Brown retaliated against him after he stated that he would file suit was sufficient at the screening stage to allow a First Amendment retaliation claim against Brown to proceed.
3. White failed to state claims against Rodney Alford, Latoya Hughes, Does I, II, and III, and Wexford because he alleged no facts establishing or permitting an inference that those defendants violated his constitutional rights.
4. White's motion for counsel was denied because he did not satisfy the threshold requirement of showing that he had made a reasonable attempt to obtain counsel or was effectively precluded from doing so.

Questions Presented

1. Whether White's allegations plausibly stated an Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference claim against Bowden and Brown.
2. Whether White's allegation that Brown retaliated against him after he threatened to file suit plausibly stated a First Amendment retaliation claim.
3. Whether White stated constitutional claims against Alford, Hughes, the Doe defendants, or Wexford.
4. Whether White was entitled to appointment of counsel in this civil rights action.

Disposition

other