James Barry Murphy v. Anthony Tony McCullough, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky dismissed a pro se pretrial detainee’s civil rights complaint concerning jail conditions, medical care, access to courts, grievances, and alleged disability discrimination. The court held that the plaintiff failed to state claims against the named defendants, failed to identify viable medical-care defendants, and did not adequately allege constitutional or ADA violations. The complaint was dismissed and the matter was stricken from the active docket.

Holdings

1. A complaint fails to state a claim against defendants who are not alleged to have personally participated in the challenged conduct, and a jailer cannot be held liable solely because of supervisory status.
2. Allegations of overcrowding, uncomfortable sleeping conditions, sleeping on the floor, and temporary lack of bedding did not state a constitutional claim because they did not plausibly allege deprivation of the minimal civilized measure of life's necessities.
3. A difference of medical opinion concerning the appropriate treatment does not, without more, establish deliberate indifference to medical needs, particularly where the plaintiff received medical attention.
4. A prisoner may not recover for mental or emotional injury suffered in custody without a prior showing of physical injury or the commission of a sexual act.
5. An access-to-courts claim requires an allegation of actual injury to a specifically identified, nonfrivolous legal claim; inability to purchase pens, paper, or envelopes, without such an allegation, is insufficient.
6. The Constitution and the PLRA do not require a jail or prison to maintain a grievance procedure or to operate one in an effective or appealable manner.
7. Allegations of disagreement with medical care, without purposeful disability-based discrimination, do not state a Title II ADA claim, and Title II does not provide for individual-capacity liability against public officials.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the complaint stated a viable constitutional claim against defendants whom Murphy did not connect to any alleged misconduct, including the jailer based only on supervisory status.
2. Whether the alleged overcrowding, uncomfortable sleeping conditions, and lack of bedding stated a constitutional conditions-of-confinement claim by a pretrial detainee.
3. Whether the alleged difference between treatment provided by jail medical staff and treatment recommended by outside physicians stated deliberate indifference to medical needs.
4. Whether the allegations concerning inability to purchase writing materials and denial of grievance appeals stated claims for denial of access to courts or violation of the PLRA or Constitution.
5. Whether the complaint stated a claim under Title II of the ADA based on alleged medical-care disagreements and claims against individual defendants.

Disposition

dismissed