Jesse L. Smith v. Mrs. Harr, et al.

Summary

The court considers defendants’ motion to dismiss a pro se inmate’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims alleging deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. The court dismisses the claim against grievance coordinator Mrs. Harr but allows the claim against nurse practitioner Mrs. Ball to proceed. The motion to dismiss is therefore granted in part and denied in part.

Holdings

1. Smith failed to state a plausible claim against Mrs. Harr because prison administrators are not liable merely for their responses to, or involvement in, the grievance process.
2. Smith plausibly alleged an Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference claim against Mrs. Ball, so the claim could proceed past the pleading stage.
3. Smith was not entitled to relief solely because he was not prescribed Ideal Prostate Plus or another specific medication; the Constitution does not provide a right to specific medication or preferred treatment.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Smith plausibly alleged an Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference claim against institutional grievance coordinator Mrs. Harr based on her alleged failure to process or obstruction of a grievance.
2. Whether Smith plausibly alleged an Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference claim against nurse practitioner Mrs. Ball based on allegedly ineffective treatment and failure to consider or offer alternative treatment.
3. Whether Smith stated a viable claim merely because he was not prescribed the specific medication or product he requested.

Disposition

other