Durell T. Crain v. Lloyd Arnold, et al.

Summary

The court screens a pro se prisoner’s amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. It permits claims to proceed against certain defendants concerning deliberate indifference to medical and mental-health needs and First Amendment retaliation, while dismissing or declining to permit other claims involving prison conditions, property, classification, and various medical and correctional personnel. The court also limits any potential preliminary injunctive relief to constitutionally adequate medical and mental-health care and conditions of confinement.

Holdings

1. Crain plausibly alleged an Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference claim against Dr. Liaw because Dr. Liaw allegedly discontinued Air Duo in September 2025 without offering alternative treatment despite Crain's continuing asthma-related breathing problems.
2. Crain may proceed against Nurse Berbaker for deliberate indifference based on allegations that she ignored multiple health-care requests concerning pain associated with his organs, leaving him without assessment or treatment.
3. Crain may proceed on a First Amendment retaliation claim against Captain Rippe and U.T.M. Sonnenberg for allegedly removing a fan from in front of his cell after he filed an emergency grievance, where the officials allegedly knew the fan reduced smoke exposure that aggravated his asthma.
4. Crain may proceed against Warden Smiley in his official capacity for injunctive relief requiring constitutionally adequate medical and mental-health care for asthma-related breathing problems, pain associated with his organs, emotional distress, hearing voices, and related symptoms.
5. The requests for preliminary injunctive relief were taken under advisement rather than granted immediately; the warden was ordered to respond concerning Crain's medical and mental-health care, and Crain was given an opportunity to reply.
6. The court denied Crain's motions for judicial notice because the asserted facts and attached materials were not appropriate for judicial notice or were unnecessary and irrelevant to the issues pending in this case.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Crain plausibly alleged that Dr. Liaw was deliberately indifferent to serious medical needs by discontinuing Air Duo in September 2025 without providing alternative treatment.
2. Whether Crain plausibly alleged deliberate indifference against Nurse Berbaker based on her alleged failure to process health-care requests concerning pain associated with his organs.
3. Whether Crain plausibly alleged First Amendment retaliation against Captain Rippe and U.T.M. Sonnenberg based on removal of a fan after Crain filed an emergency grievance.
4. Whether Crain's remaining medical, mental-health, property, classification, and policy-related allegations stated actionable constitutional claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
5. Whether Crain was entitled to preliminary injunctive relief or judicial notice of materials and filings.

Disposition

other