Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-04186/USCOURTS-ca8-06-04186-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Neil T. Gray
Appellant
Medical Staff at Jameson Annex
Appellee
Doug Weber
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Richard H. Battey, United States District Judge for the District

of South Dakota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-4186

___________

Neil T. Gray, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of South Dakota.

Doug Weber, Warden, in his *

official and individual capacities; * [UNPUBLISHED]

Medical Staff at Jameson Annex, *

in their official and individual *

capacities, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: July 24, 2007

Filed: July 30, 2007

___________

Before GRUENDER, HANSEN, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges

___________

PER CURIAM.

South Dakota inmate Neil T. Gray appeals the district court’s1

 pre-service

dismissal, under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A, of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983

lawsuit seeking damages against Warden Douglas Weber and prison “Medical Staff.”

We grant Gray leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, and following de novo

Appellate Case: 06-4186 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/30/2007 Entry ID: 3334823
2

Because Gray’s complaint was dismissed without prejudice, he is not

precluded from refiling it against the individual parties who are directly responsible

for the complained-of events. 

-2-

review, see Moore v. Sims, 200 F.3d 1170, 1171 (8th Cir. 2000) (per curiam)

(standard of review under § 1915(e)(2)(B)); Cooper v. Schriro, 189 F.3d 781, 783 (8th

Cir. 1999) (per curiam) (standard of review under § 1915A), we affirm.

According to his complaint, Gray was injured when he slipped on wet concrete

while being handcuffed by a corrections officer, and although the officer was made

aware of Gray’s injuries, he returned Gray to his cell and failed to alert medical staff.

Later that day, when unspecified medical staff were making their rounds on Gray’s

floor, he told them of his injuries to his back and neck, but he was told there was

nothing the staff could do. Due to the lack of medical assistance, his injuries

worsened resulting in a pinched nerve and the loss of feeling in his right foot. 

We respectfully disagree with the district court that the instant complaint

merely alleged negligence: it alleges that a corrections officer and medical staff with

knowledge of Gray’s injuries specifically refused to help him. Nevertheless, the

complaint was properly dismissed because as the district court noted, Gray named

only the warden, who was not alleged to have any personal involvement in or direct

responsibility for these events. See Hughes v. Stottlemyre, 454 F.3d 791, 798 (8th

Cir. 2006); White v. Farrier, 849 F.2d 322, 327 (8th Cir. 1988). Further, it is

impossible to discern from Gray’s complaint which medical-staff employee or

employees were responsible for denying him care, because he identifies them only

collectively as “medical staff.” See Brown v. Wallace, 957 F.2d 564, 566 (8th Cir.

1992) (per curiam) (medical indifference claim must be brought against individual

directly responsible for inmate’s care); cf. Munz v. Parr, 758 F.2d 1254, 1257 (8th Cir.

1985) (permitting § 1983 action to proceed against “John Doe” police-officer

defendants when complaint was specific enough to permit identification of unknown

parties through reasonable discovery).2

 Finally, we conclude that the district court did

Appellate Case: 06-4186 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/30/2007 Entry ID: 3334823
-3-

not abuse its discretion in refusing to appoint counsel. See Abdullah v. Gunter, 949

F.2d 1032, 1035 (8th Cir. 1991) (standard of review and factors).

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-4186 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/30/2007 Entry ID: 3334823