Mark A. Schultz v. C.O. Slates, Z. Paul, John Does, John Kind, Nurse Jamie, Mr. Lemke, Laurisa Cortez, Warden Pertu, and Warden Stevens

Summary

The court screened Mark Schultz’s second amended 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint concerning the mistaken administration of another inmate’s medication and subsequent medical care. The court held that the allegations failed to state constitutional claims based on negligence, delayed or inadequate care, supervisory liability, administrative grievance handling, or disagreement over medication dosage. The action was dismissed under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b)(1), a strike was assessed under § 1915(g), and Schultz’s motions for appointed counsel and assistance identifying Doe defendants were denied as moot.

Holdings

1. A one-time, inadvertent dispensing of the wrong medication amounts at most to negligence and does not state an actionable constitutional claim under § 1983.
2. An officer's failure to adhere to prison policy, standing alone, does not violate the Constitution.
3. Officers did not violate the Constitution by directing Schultz to submit a health-services slip when the allegations did not show that he required immediate or emergency care or that the delay caused injury.
4. Nurse Jamie's assessment of Schultz and instruction to contact health services if his condition changed did not state an Eighth Amendment claim because the alleged measures were reasonable.
5. Supervisory officials and an inmate complaint examiner are not liable under § 1983 absent personal responsibility for the constitutional deprivation; respondeat superior is unavailable.
6. Schultz could not pursue the claim against psychiatrist Laurisa Cortez in this action because it was unrelated to the medication-dispensing incident, and the court dropped Cortez as a defendant under Rule 21.
7. The second amended complaint was dismissed for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b)(1).

Questions Presented

1. Whether an isolated, inadvertent medication error by a correctional officer stated a constitutional claim under § 1983.
2. Whether officers who directed Schultz to submit a health-services request rather than immediately interrupting their duties violated the Constitution.
3. Whether Nurse Jamie's assessment and advice to contact health services if symptoms developed stated an Eighth Amendment claim.
4. Whether supervisory officials and an inmate complaint examiner could be held liable absent personal involvement in the alleged constitutional deprivation.
5. Whether Schultz could pursue in this action a claim against his psychiatrist concerning refusal to change his medication dosage when that claim arose from separate conduct.
6. Whether the second amended complaint should be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b)(1), and whether the related motions should be denied as moot.

Disposition

dismissed