Les Christopher Burns v. Haley Lowman

Summary

The United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia considers a pro se inmate’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims against a nurse practitioner alleging retaliation for filing a grievance and unconstitutional medical isolation. The court concludes that the complaint fails to plausibly allege the defendant’s personal involvement or establish a First, Eighth, or Fourteenth Amendment violation. The court grants the defendant’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss.

Holdings

1. A § 1983 complaint must allege facts showing each defendant's personal involvement in the alleged constitutional deprivation; merely naming a defendant in the caption is insufficient. Burns's complaint did not plausibly allege Lowman's personal involvement.
2. The complaint failed to state a First Amendment retaliation claim because it did not plausibly allege that Lowman took any action adversely affecting Burns's First Amendment rights.
3. The complaint failed to state an Eighth Amendment conditions-of-confinement claim because the vague allegation of medical isolation did not plausibly satisfy the objective or subjective components of such a claim.
4. Assuming Burns was a pretrial detainee, the complaint failed to state a Fourteenth Amendment conditions-of-confinement claim because it did not plausibly allege that Lowman knowingly, intentionally, or recklessly failed to address a substantial risk of serious harm.
5. A plaintiff may not amend a complaint by adding new allegations in a response to a motion to dismiss.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the complaint plausibly alleged that Lowman was personally involved in a constitutional deprivation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
2. Whether the complaint stated a First Amendment retaliation claim based on Burns's filing of a grievance.
3. Whether the complaint stated an Eighth Amendment conditions-of-confinement claim or, if Burns was a pretrial detainee, a Fourteenth Amendment due-process claim.
4. Whether Burns could supplement or amend the complaint through allegations made in his opposition brief.

Disposition

dismissed