Christopher Lewis v. Farrington, et al.

Summary

The court conducts a merit review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A of Christopher Lewis’s pro se § 1983 complaint alleging deliberate indifference to serious medical needs arising from the discontinuation of buprenorphine. The court permits the Eighth Amendment claims to proceed against the Doe defendants, Nurse Whitley, and Officer Sleeter, dismisses the claim against Warden Farrington for lack of personal involvement, and directs service and further case-management procedures.

Holdings

1. The complaint stated a plausible Eighth Amendment claim for deliberate indifference to a serious medical need because the defendants allegedly knowingly denied needed opioid use disorder medication, tapering, or alternative treatment, causing unnecessary pain and suffering.
2. The complaint failed to state a claim against Warden Farrington because it did not allege her personal involvement in the medical-care deprivation, and she was entitled to defer to medical professionals' treatment decisions.
3. The court reserved ruling on the motion for temporary restraining order until defendants had been served and had an opportunity to respond.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the complaint plausibly alleged an Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference claim against the medical and correctional defendants.
2. Whether the complaint stated a § 1983 claim against Warden Farrington absent allegations of her personal involvement in the alleged deprivation.
3. Whether the court should rule on Lewis's motion for a temporary restraining order before defendants were served and the motion was fully briefed.

Disposition

other