Nichelle R. Kephart v. Crystal Large, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia grants Defendants’ motions to dismiss a pro se pretrial detainee’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims concerning an alleged change to her seizure medication. The court concludes that the complaint does not identify each Defendant’s personal involvement or adequately allege deliberate indifference and grants Plaintiff 30 days to file an amended complaint.

Holdings

1. A § 1983 plaintiff must allege direct personal involvement and each defendant's own constitutional violation; the complaint failed to state a claim because it did not identify which defendant changed the medication or describe what either defendant did or failed to do.
2. The complaint failed to state a plausible Fourteenth Amendment deliberate-indifference claim because it did not clearly allege that the responsible provider knew or should have known that changing the medication posed an unjustifiably high risk of harm, or that Plaintiff was actually harmed by the change.
3. The court granted Kephart leave to amend within 30 days because her opposition identified additional factual allegations that could make her claims plausible if properly pleaded.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the complaint plausibly stated a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against either defendant when it did not identify either defendant's personal involvement in changing the medication or describe conduct by either defendant.
2. Whether the complaint plausibly alleged deliberate indifference to serious medical needs under the Fourteenth Amendment.
3. Whether the pro se plaintiff should be granted leave to amend based on additional factual allegations raised in her opposition.

Disposition

dismissed