Dustin Lee Arbuckle v. C. Frey, Ron Neal, and A. Myers

Summary

The United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana screened Dustin Lee Arbuckle’s prisoner complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The court permitted Eighth Amendment claims to proceed against the defendants based on alleged denial or delay of medical care for a broken hand, allowed official-capacity injunctive relief against the warden, dismissed the remaining claims, and denied preliminary injunctive relief.

Holdings

1. The complaint plausibly alleged that Frey acted with deliberate indifference by refusing to assist Arbuckle or facilitate medical care for several hours after Arbuckle suffered a serious hand fracture and complained of pain.
2. The complaint plausibly alleged that Myers was deliberately indifferent to Arbuckle's serious medical need by repeatedly refusing treatment, including pain medication, after learning of his fractured hand.
3. The complaint plausibly alleged an individual-capacity deliberate-indifference claim against Neal based on allegations that he received repeated direct notice that Arbuckle had received no medical care and failed to respond.
4. Arbuckle could proceed against Neal in his official capacity for prospective injunctive relief requiring constitutionally adequate medical care for his ongoing hand injury.
5. Arbuckle failed to state a plausible First Amendment retaliation claim because threats to file a grievance were not protected activity, and he did not plausibly allege a post-grievance adverse action caused by a filed grievance. The alleged conduct underlying the other retaliation theory was dismissed as redundant of the viable Eighth Amendment medical-care claims.
6. Arbuckle failed to state a plausible failure-to-protect claim because allegations of a vague, generalized, and unidentified future 'hit' or threat did not identify a specific, credible, imminent, and substantial risk of serious harm known and disregarded by the defendants.
7. The motion for a preliminary injunction was denied because the new allegations concerning mental-health treatment, threats, and a requested transfer were unrelated or insufficiently specific and did not establish a reasonable likelihood of success or the other threshold requirements for extraordinary relief.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Arbuckle plausibly alleged Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference claims against Frey, Myers, and Neal based on the denial or delay of medical care for his fractured hand.
2. Whether Arbuckle plausibly alleged First Amendment retaliation based on threats and adverse conduct allegedly connected to grievances or threatened grievances.
3. Whether Arbuckle plausibly alleged an Eighth Amendment failure-to-protect claim based on warnings about a possible 'hit' and generalized threats at the prison.
4. Whether Arbuckle stated a basis for preliminary injunctive relief concerning alleged mental-health deficiencies, threats, and a requested transfer.
5. Whether Arbuckle could proceed against Neal in his official capacity for prospective injunctive relief requiring constitutionally adequate medical care.

Disposition

other