Maurice Treakle v. Frederick J. Nahas, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey grants Maurice Treakle’s application to proceed in forma pauperis but screens and dismisses his Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference claims without prejudice. The court finds that the complaint does not adequately allege that Dr. Nahas was a state actor or that the institutional defendants knowingly disregarded Treakle’s serious medical needs. The court also denies Treakle’s motion for appointment of counsel without prejudice.

Holdings

1. Plaintiff satisfied the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) by submitting an affidavit of inability to pay and a certified six-month inmate trust-account statement; the application to proceed in forma pauperis was therefore granted.
2. After granting in forma pauperis status, the district court was required to screen the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), applying the same failure-to-state-a-claim standard used under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
3. The claim against Dr. Nahas failed because the complaint did not allege sufficient facts showing that Nahas acted under color of state law or that his conduct was attributable to the State; the claim was dismissed without prejudice.
4. The claims against Atlantic County Medical Center, Southwoods, and Bayside State Prison failed because Plaintiff did not allege sufficient facts showing that the institutional defendants knew of and deliberately disregarded his serious medical needs; the claims were dismissed without prejudice.
5. Appointment of counsel was not warranted because, although Plaintiff demonstrated indigency, he failed to state a claim; the motion for appointment of counsel was denied without prejudice.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Plaintiff's complaint stated a plausible 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim against Dr. Nahas where the complaint did not establish whether Nahas acted under color of state law.
2. Whether Plaintiff stated an Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference claim against the institutional defendants.
3. Whether Plaintiff was entitled to appointment of counsel in the civil-rights action.
4. Whether Plaintiff qualified to proceed in forma pauperis.

Disposition

dismissed