Source: http://sc.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20190911_0002371.DSC.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-10-23 10:11:23
Document Index: 430017774

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1915', '§ 1915', '§ 636', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 1983']

FindACase™ | Perritt v. Mediko
Perritt v. Mediko
Micheal Wayne Perritt, Plaintiff,
Mediko; Melissa Vanduser; Heather Stanley; Jamie Fitcher; Erin Pintkowski; Dr. Joe Long; Dr. Joe Papotto, Defendants.
The plaintiff, Micheal Wayne Perritt, a self-represented state pretrial detainee, brings this civil rights action. The Complaint has been filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and § 1915A. This matter is before the court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.). By order dated July 24, 2019, the court identified deficiencies in Plaintiff's Complaint that subjected this case to summary dismissal, and provided Plaintiff with the opportunity to file an amended complaint. (ECF No. 8.) Plaintiff has now filed an Amended Complaint and supplement. (ECF Nos. 15 & 16.) Having reviewed the Amended Complaint and supplement in accordance with applicable law, the court finds this action is still subject to summary dismissal if Plaintiff does not amend the Amended Complaint to cure the deficiencies identified herein.
In the original Complaint, Plaintiff, an inmate in the J. Reuben Long Detention Center in Conway, South Carolina, indicated that he slipped and injured a bone in his left foot in January 2019. (Compl., ECF No. 1 at 2, 6-7.) He claimed that despite his numerous requests for medical attention, the jail medical department run by Mediko did not x-ray his foot until six to seven weeks after the fall. (Id. at 8.) He further claimed that the medical staff determined that Plaintiff's bone was cracked, but Plaintiff was later taken to an outside doctor who determined that the bone was broken. (Id.) Plaintiff indicated that the outside doctor also determined that because the break went untreated, it had already started to heal, causing permanent damage. (Id.) Plaintiff indicated he brought this action for damages pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for a violation of the Eighth Amendment. (Id. at 5.) Plaintiff named the J. Reuben Long Detention Center and Mediko as defendants in the caption of the Complaint. (Id. at 1.) However, Plaintiff also listed “Mediko (Nurses)” as a named defendant in the body of the Complaint. (Id. at 3.)
In the Amended Complaint, Plaintiff no longer names the J. Reuben Long Detention Center or “Mediko Nurses” as defendants, [1] and Plaintiff now names several individuals as defendants. (Am. Compl., ECF No. 16 at 1-3, 5-6.) And, Plaintiff makes the same allegations about the injury to his foot and lack of timely treatment as he did in the original Complaint. (Id. at 8-10.) Also, Plaintiff again asserts that he brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking damages for a violation of the Eighth Amendment. (Id. at 7, 9.)
Despite having availed himself of the opportunity to cure the deficiencies in the original complaint identified by the court, Plaintiff's Amended Complaint still fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. A legal action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 allows “a party who has been deprived of a federal right under the color of state law to seek relief.” City of Monterey v. Del Monte Dunes at Monterey, Ltd., 526 U.S. 687, 707 (1999). To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).
While Plaintiff has now identified individuals amenable to suit pursuant to § 1983, he fails to provide any facts about them. Accordingly, Plaintiff fails to plausibly allege that the newly-named individuals violated his rights. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676 (providing that a plaintiff in a § 1983 action must plead that the defendant, through his own individual actions, violated the Constitution); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 850 (4th Cir. 1985) (“In order for an individual to be liable under § 1983, it must be ‘affirmatively shown that the official charged acted personally in the deprivation of the plaintiff's rights.' ”) (quoting Vinnedge v. Gibbs, 550 F.2d 926, 928 (4th Cir. 1977)). Because Plaintiff does not explain how the individual defendants were involved in the purported violation of Plaintiff's rights, Plaintiff fails to meet the federal pleading standards. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 8 (requiring that a pleading contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief”); Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (stating Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 does not require detailed factual allegations, but it requires more than a plain accusation that the defendant unlawfully harmed the plaintiff, devoid of factual support).
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Also, as explained in the court&#39;s previous order regarding amendment, the Amended Complaint fails to state a claim against Mediko upon which relief can be granted because he fails to plausibly allege facts that could show that his injury was caused by a custom or policy of Mediko. See generally Austin v. Paramount Parks, Inc., 195 F.3d 715, 728 (4th Cir. 1999) (“[A] private corporation is liable under § 1983 only when an official policy or custom of the corporation causes the ...