Mitchell Freeman # 520969 v. Rudd Medical Center, et al.

Summary

The court grants the incarcerated plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis but denies his motion to appoint counsel because it was unsigned and exceptional circumstances were not shown. On PLRA screening, the court concludes that the Rutherford County Detention Center is not a suable person under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, that the official-capacity claims against the unidentified doctor do not allege a policy or custom attributable to Rudd Medical, and that the medical-treatment allegations do not establish deliberate indifference. The action is dismissed for failure to state a claim, and the plaintiff is denied in forma pauperis status for any appeal.

Holdings

1. The court granted Freeman's application to proceed in forma pauperis but assessed the full $350 civil filing fee, payable through the statutory initial-payment and installment procedures.
2. The court denied Freeman's motion to appoint counsel because it was unsigned and, independently, because he did not demonstrate exceptional circumstances warranting appointment of counsel in a civil case.
3. The Rutherford County Detention Center is not a person subject to suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because it is a building rather than a suable legal entity.
4. The official-capacity claim against the unidentified Rudd Medical doctor failed because Freeman did not allege that a Rudd Medical policy, practice, or custom caused the asserted constitutional deprivation.
5. Freeman's allegations did not state a colorable Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference claim because he received medical attention, disagreed with the adequacy of the treatment, and did not allege facts showing that an individual subjectively disregarded a substantial risk of serious harm.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Freeman's application to proceed in forma pauperis should be granted and whether he remained responsible for the full filing fee.
2. Whether Freeman's unsigned motion to appoint counsel should be considered or granted.
3. Whether the Rutherford County Detention Center is a suable person under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
4. Whether the official-capacity claim against the unidentified Rudd Medical doctor adequately alleged that a Rudd Medical policy or custom caused a constitutional violation.
5. Whether the allegations of receiving ibuprofen and disagreeing with the adequacy of treatment stated an Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference claim.

Disposition

dismissed