Jacob Nathaniel Vanderweken v. Ty Davis; Deputy Warden Martinez; C/O Vaughn; VSC Tomlinson; C/O Somers; and VSC Borosso

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Idaho screened Plaintiff Jacob Nathaniel Vanderweken’s amended civil rights complaint under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915 and 1915A. The court denied appointed counsel, found that the amended complaint failed to plausibly state an Eighth Amendment claim against a correctional officer, and dismissed the case with prejudice without further leave to amend.

Holdings

1. Appointment of counsel is discretionary and warranted only in exceptional circumstances, evaluated by considering the likelihood of success on the merits together with the plaintiff's ability to articulate the claims in light of their complexity. No exceptional circumstances existed because the claims were not legally complex, Plaintiff had adequately presented his interests, and the amended complaint lacked merit.
2. The amended complaint failed to state a plausible Eighth Amendment claim because alleging that Vaughn saw Plaintiff limping and told him to walk faster did not plausibly establish that Vaughn was aware of facts indicating a substantial risk of serious harm and actually drew that inference.
3. The court was required to dismiss the amended complaint because it failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, and dismissal with prejudice without further leave to amend was appropriate after Plaintiff had already received an opportunity to amend and failed to cure the defect.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Plaintiff's amended complaint plausibly stated an Eighth Amendment claim against Defendant Vaughn.
2. Whether the court should appoint counsel for Plaintiff in this civil action.
3. Whether the action should be dismissed with prejudice after Plaintiff failed to cure the deficiencies identified in the initial screening order.

Disposition

dismissed