United States District Court, N.D. Mississippi, Greenville Division
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
M. Brown UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter is before the Court, sua sponte, for consideration of
dismissal. Julius Earl Edwards, an inmate housed at the
Tallahatchie County Correctional Facility
(“TCCF”) in Tutwiler, Mississippi, has filed a
civil rights suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against
TCCF Warden Grant. Having fully considered Edward's
allegations and the applicable law, the Court finds that
Edwards' complaint must be dismissed.
Edwards has been permitted to proceed in forma
pauperis in this action,  his complaint is subject to sua
sponte dismissal under the Prison Litigation Reform Act
(“PLRA”). See 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2). Pursuant to the PLRA, the Court is
obligated to evaluate the complaint and dismiss it if it is
“frivolous or malicious, ” if it “fails to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted, ” or if
it “seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is
immune from such relief.” Id. A claim is
frivolous if it “lacks an arguable basis either in law
or in fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S.
319, 325 (1989). A complaint fails to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted if relief could not be granted to
the plaintiff “under any set of facts that could be
proven consistent with the allegations” in the
complaint. Bradley v. Puckett, 157 F.3d 1022, 1025
(5th Cir. 1998) (citation omitted); see Bell Atlantic
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007) (complaint
fails to state claim only where it does not plead
“enough facts to state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face”).
asserts that on November 15, 2016, he was using an exercise
machine in the “yard” at TCCF when the cable
snapped, causing the thirty-pound bar connected to the cable
to fall onto his head. Doc. #1 at 4. Edwards claims that he
sustained a “massive knot” as a result of the
incident, and that he has since experienced symptoms of
blurred vision, migraines, and dizziness. Id.
Stating that his subsequent request for a CT scan was denied,
Edwards seeks relief in the form of monetary damages for
Defendant's “lack of maintenance … on the
order to state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must
allege that he was deprived of a right under the Constitution
or the laws of the United States by a person acting under the
color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48
(1988). In his complaint, Edwards seeks recovery for
Grant's allegedly improper maintenance of the exercise
machines at TCCF, as well as the denial of medical care. The
claims are subject to scrutiny under the Eighth
Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual
punishment. Woods v. Edwards, 51 F.3d 577, 581 (5th
this standard, a prison official violates an inmate's
constitutional rights only if the official shows a subjective
deliberate indifference to conditions posing a substantial
risk of serious harm to the inmate. Gates v. Cook,
376 F.3d 323, 333 (5th Cir. 2004) (citing Farmer v.
Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 833-34 (1994)) (quotation marks
omitted). Negligent actions do not state a § 1983 claim.
Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 328 (1986).
seeks to hold Grant responsible for his injuries on the
theory that Grant, as Warden of TCCF, should have inspected
and maintained the exercise equipment. However, “courts
have held that failure to make proper safety inspections may
amount to negligence, but does not by itself amount to
deliberate indifference.” Gossett v. Wilson,
No. 6:16-cv-726, 2016 WL 6518663, at *2 (E.D. Tex. Sep. 29,
2016) (collecting cases).
Denial of Medical Care
additionally alleges that he was denied medical care, as his
request for a CT scan was denied. A plaintiff cannot support
a claim of deliberate indifference merely by disagreeing with
the choice of medical treatment he is provided. Norton v.
Dimazana, 122 F.3d 286, 292 (5th Cir. 2001); Gibbs
v. Grimmette, 254 F.3d 545, 549 (5th Cir. 2001). Rather,
“[a] showing of deliberate indifference requires the
prisoner to submit evidence that prison officials refused to
treat him, ignored his complaints, intentionally treated him
incorrectly, or engaged in any similar conduct that would
clearly evince a wanton disregard for any serious medical
needs.” Gobert v. Caldwell, 463 F.3d 339, 346
(5th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted).
concedes that he was initially provided with pain-relieving
medication after the cable fell onto his head, and that
several days later, his dosage of the medication was
increased to alleviate his symptoms. Doc. #1 at 4. Therefore,
even if the Court assumed that Grant bore the responsibility
for deciding what medical treatment was necessary for
Edwards, Edwards' own allegations show that he was
provided with treatment. While Edwards disagrees with the
level of treatment he received, this disagreement does not
raise a constitutional issue. See Hickerson v.
Cooper, No. 09-cv-404, 2009 WL 1787701, at *3 (W.D. La.
June 23, 2009) (“He believes that [the defendant] did
not treat him properly because he did not order a CT scan.
[The defendant] apparently ordered an x-ray, ...