United States District Court, D. Nevada
Harold E. Montague, Plaintiff
v.
Mr. Jackson, et al., Defendants
ORDER SCREENING COMPLAINT AND DENYING MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL [ECF No. 3]
Jennifer A.Dorsey United States District Judge
Nevada
state-prison inmate Harold E. Montague has submitted a
civil-rights complaint along with an application to proceed
in forma pauperis and a motion for appointment of
counsel. I temporarily defer the matter of the filing fee,
screen Montague's complaint, permit his excessive-force
claim to proceed, dismiss his deliberate-indifference and
due-process claims without prejudice and with leave to amend,
and give Montague until April 22, 2017, to file an amended
complaint.
Discussion
A.
Screening Standards
The
PLRA directs federal courts to conduct a preliminary
screening of any case in which a prisoner seeks redress from
a governmental entity or officer or an employee of a
governmental entity.[1] In its review, the court must identify any
cognizable claims and dismiss any claims that are frivolous,
malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is
immune from such relief.[2] To state a claim under 42 USC §
1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements: (1) the
violation of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of
the United States and (2) that the alleged violation was
committed by a person acting under color of state
law.[3]
Pro se pleadings, however, must be liberally
construed.[4]
Dismissal
of a complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief
can be granted is provided for in Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6), and the court applies the same standards
under § 1915 when reviewing the adequacy of a
prisoner's complaint. When a court dismisses a complaint
under § 1915(e), the plaintiff should be given leave to
amend the complaint with directions for curing its
deficiencies unless it is clear from the face of the
complaint that the deficiencies could not be cured by
amendment.[5]
B.
Screening Montague's complaint
Montague
sues defendants Mr. Jackson and Dr. Racoma for events that
allegedly took place while Montague was incarcerated at the
Ely State Prison and the High Desert State
Prison.[6]Montague alleges three counts and seeks
monetary damages.[7]
Montague
alleges the following: the District Court of Clark County
ordered Montague to receive mental-health treatment during
his incarceration in the Nevada Department of
Corrections.[8]On one occasion, Montague became
disoriented from his medications and fell down a flight of
metal stairs.[9] He periodically refused to take his
medications because “his blood levels were not getting
checked as they were supposed to be” and he believed
the dosages were incorrect.[10] Montague was unable to discuss
these issues with a mental-heath professional before
defendant Mr. Jackson, who is not a licensed psychiatrist,
“dismissed” Montague from treatment and
discontinued his medications.[11] If there was any kind of
hearing before Montague was dismissed from mental-health
treatment, he was not notified or given the opportunity to
defend himself.[12] Mr. Jackson's actions violated the
state court's order that Montague should receive
mental-health treatment.[13] After being taken off his
medications, Montague suffered a mental breakdown,
[14]
and defendant Dr. Racoma had the prison Special Emergency
Response Team beat up and forcibly medicate
him.[15] In count one, Montague alleges that he
suffered cruel and unusual punishment in violation of his
Eighth Amendment rights.[16] In count two, he alleges that
defendants violated his Fourteenth Amendment due-process
rights.[17] In count three, Montague alleges that
defendants violated his First Amendment rights to freedom of
speech and to peacefully protest.[18] I broadly construe
Montague's allegations as asserting claims for deliberate
indifference to serious medical needs, excessive force, and
due-process violations, and I discuss each in turn.
A.
Deliberate indifference to serious medical needs
A
prisoner who claims inadequate medical care must show that
prison officials were deliberately indifferent to his serious
medical needs.[19] A plaintiff can prevail on a
deliberate-indifference claim if he can show that prison
officials denied, delayed, or intentionally interfered with
medical treatment and that the delay or interference caused
further injury.[20] Indifference to a prisoner's medical
needs must be substantial; mere indifference, negligence,
medical malpractice, or even gross negligence are
insufficient to establish deliberate
indifference.[21] A mere difference of medical opinion
likewise does not suffice;[22] a prisoner must instead show
that the course of treatment chosen was medically
unacceptable under the circumstances and taken in conscious
disregard to his health.[23]
I
dismiss Montague's deliberate-indifference claim without
prejudice and with leave to amend because the allegations in
his complaint are too thin to allow me to determine whether
prison officials were deliberately indifferent to his serious
mental-health needs. If Montague chooses to amend his
complaint, he must keep the above standards in mind. He must
also include the approximate dates of when he started his
mental-health treatment, when he was dismissed from
treatment, when he fell down the flight of metal stairs, and
when he suffered a mental breakdown. Upon amendment, Montague
must also explain what types of medications he was taking,
when and how he attempted to raise his concerns about these
medications with prison officials, and their responses.
Finally, to the extent that Montague is relying on the
state-court order directing that he receive mental-health
treatment, Montague should provide more details about the
context and contents of that order.
B.
Excessive force
Excessive-force claims under the Eighth Amendment turn on
whether the force was applied in a good-faith effort to
maintain or restore discipline or maliciously and
sadistically for the purpose of causing harm.[24] In
determining whether the use of force was wanton and
unnecessary, courts consider the need for application of
force, the relationship between that need and the amount of
force used, the threat reasonably perceived by the
responsible officials, and any efforts made to temper the
severity of a forceful response.[25] Although an inmate need
not have suffered serious injury to bring an excessive-force
claim, de minimis uses of force are not
actionable.[26]
Montague
states a colorable excessive-force claim against against Dr.
Racoma. He alleges that the doctor directed the prison
Special Emergency Response Team to beat him up. Accordingly,
this claim will proceed against Dr. Racoma.
C.
Due process
Though
“the Due Process Clause permits the State to treat a
prison inmate who has a serious mental illness with
antipsychotic drugs against his will if the inmate is
dangerous to himself or others and the treatment is in the
inmate's medical interest, ”[27] certain
procedural protections must be afforded to ensure that the
decision to medicate an inmate against his will is neither
arbitrary nor erroneous.[28] The Supreme Court has held that
notice, the right to be present at an adversary hearing, and
the right to present and cross-examine witnesses are
sufficient, and a judicial decisionmaker is not
required.[29]
I
dismiss Montague's due-process claim without prejudice
and with leave to amend because I am unable to tell from his
allegations whether the procedures he was afforded were
sufficient. Upon amendment, Montague must include the date of
when he was forcefully medicated, what medication he was
forced to take, whether he was given a hearing to determine
whether he could refuse treatment, and what procedures were
followed at that hearing.
D.
...