Mark L. Tatum v. Lt. Jackie Bird and Sgt. Justin Louis

Summary

The United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia granted Mark L. Tatum leave to proceed in forma pauperis but dismissed his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The court held that the complaint failed to state a plausible claim because it lacked allegations against one defendant and did not identify a constitutional or federal-law violation arising from a medication co-payment charged during Tatum’s incarceration.

Holdings

1. The complaint failed to state a plausible claim against Louis because it contained no allegations regarding his personal actions or inactions and named him only in the caption.
2. The complaint failed to state a viable § 1983 claim against Bird because Tatum did not identify a constitutional or federal-law right violated by the medication charge, and the alleged advice correctly reflected that incarcerated individuals may be charged for medication.
3. The complaint failed to state a deliberate-indifference claim because Tatum did not allege that medication was denied, that he was unable to pay, or that the medication concerned a serious medical need.
4. The court was required to dismiss the complaint without prejudice because it was frivolous and failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the complaint stated a plausible claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Sgt. Justin Louis when it contained no allegations concerning his personal involvement.
2. Whether the complaint stated a plausible § 1983 claim against Lt. Jackie Bird based on advising Tatum that he would be charged for medication.
3. Whether the complaint alleged facts supporting a deliberate-indifference claim based on denial of medical care.

Disposition

dismissed