Curtis L. McBride v. Wardlow, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana dismissed Curtis L. McBride’s second amended prisoner complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The court held that the allegations concerning restraints used during a tooth extraction did not plausibly establish excessive force, deliberate indifference to medical needs, or failure to intervene under the Eighth Amendment. The dismissal was without further leave to amend because amendment would be futile.

Holdings

1. McBride failed to plausibly allege that Major Wardlow required the rear-handcuffing method maliciously or sadistically to cause harm rather than in a good-faith effort to maintain order. The excessive-force claim against Wardlow therefore failed.
2. McBride failed to plausibly allege that Dr. Ruckers performed the tooth extraction with his hands cuffed behind his back for the purpose of maliciously and sadistically causing harm.
3. McBride failed to plausibly allege that Sgt. Welch was deliberately indifferent to the risk of injury or pain by following Wardlow's restraint directive and not stopping the agreed-to tooth extraction when McBride cried out. He also could not maintain a failure-to-intervene claim without an underlying constitutional violation.
4. McBride failed to plausibly allege that Dr. Ruckers or Sgt. Welch acted with deliberate indifference to a serious medical need or departed substantially from accepted professional judgment in connection with the dental procedure.
5. Further leave to amend was denied because McBride had already received two opportunities to correct the deficiencies and amendment would be futile.

Questions Presented

1. Whether McBride plausibly stated an Eighth Amendment excessive-force claim against Major Wardlow based on the decision to require his hands to be cuffed behind his back during the dental procedure.
2. Whether McBride plausibly stated an Eighth Amendment excessive-force claim against Dr. Ruckers based on performing the tooth extraction while McBride's hands were cuffed behind his back.
3. Whether McBride plausibly stated an Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference or failure-to-intervene claim against Sgt. Welch.
4. Whether McBride plausibly stated an Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference-to-medical-needs claim against Dr. Ruckers or Sgt. Welch based on the manner of the tooth extraction and the alleged pain.
5. Whether further leave to amend should be granted after two prior opportunities to correct the pleading.

Disposition

dismissed