×
You have 2 more free articles available this month. Subscribe today.
Dismissal of Medical and Retaliation Claims Reversed
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, in an unpublished opinion, has reversed a lower courts dismissal of deliberate indifference claims in a prisoners denial of medical treatment for hepatitis C plus pancreatic and gout disorders. The Court further reversed the dismissal of a retaliation claim for contacting a fellow prisoners mother.
Michael Moore, a North Carolina state prisoner, filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint alleging deliberate indifference in his medical care for a host of problems including hepatitis C, a pancreatic condition, gout in his hand, and others. Moore also claimed he was retaliated against for contacting the mother of another prisoner who was severely beaten by guards. Moores complaint also included claims of cruel and unusual punishment in conditions of confinement and lack of due process in classification.
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina dismissed the complaint as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
On appeal, the Fourth Circuit, accepting Moores allegations as true and drawing all reasonable factual inferences in his favor, reviewed his complaint de novo. Finding Moore alleged medical harm sufficient to establish deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs under Estelle v. Gamble, 97 S.Ct. 285 (1976), the Court reversed only the dismissal of Moores hepatitis C, pancreatic and gout claims. The Court found the rest were meritless.
Although the Court did not state specifically how Moore was exercising constitutionally protected conduct or how he was retaliated against, the Court held his complaint sufficiently stated a claim for retaliatory action taken by guards with regard to the protected conduct.
Affirming the dismissal of the condition of confinement claims, the Court found Moore failed to establish a serious deprivation to a basic human need and guards deliberate indifference to that need. Moreover, Moore failed to demonstrate a serious physical or emotional injury resulting from the conditions. The dismissal of Moores due process in classification claim was also affirmed. See: Moore v. Bennette, 97 Fed. Appx. 405(4th Cir. 2004).
"
Michael Moore, a North Carolina state prisoner, filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint alleging deliberate indifference in his medical care for a host of problems including hepatitis C, a pancreatic condition, gout in his hand, and others. Moore also claimed he was retaliated against for contacting the mother of another prisoner who was severely beaten by guards. Moores complaint also included claims of cruel and unusual punishment in conditions of confinement and lack of due process in classification.
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina dismissed the complaint as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
On appeal, the Fourth Circuit, accepting Moores allegations as true and drawing all reasonable factual inferences in his favor, reviewed his complaint de novo. Finding Moore alleged medical harm sufficient to establish deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs under Estelle v. Gamble, 97 S.Ct. 285 (1976), the Court reversed only the dismissal of Moores hepatitis C, pancreatic and gout claims. The Court found the rest were meritless.
Although the Court did not state specifically how Moore was exercising constitutionally protected conduct or how he was retaliated against, the Court held his complaint sufficiently stated a claim for retaliatory action taken by guards with regard to the protected conduct.
Affirming the dismissal of the condition of confinement claims, the Court found Moore failed to establish a serious deprivation to a basic human need and guards deliberate indifference to that need. Moreover, Moore failed to demonstrate a serious physical or emotional injury resulting from the conditions. The dismissal of Moores due process in classification claim was also affirmed. See: Moore v. Bennette, 97 Fed. Appx. 405(4th Cir. 2004).
"
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login
Related legal case
Moore v. Bennette
| Year | 2004 |
|---|---|
| Cite | 97 Fed. Appx. 405(4th Cir. 2004) |
| Level | Court of Appeals |
| Attorney Fees | 0 |
| Damages | 0 |
| Injunction Status | N/A |
MICHAEL WAYNE MOORE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JAMES B. BENNETTE; GEORGE E. CURRIE; JOSEPH LIGHTSEY; RICHARD T. JONES; TONIA RODGERS, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 03-7699
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
97 Fed. Appx. 405; 2004 U.S. App.
March 29, 2004, Submitted
April 30, 2004, Decided
NOTICE: [**1] RULES OF THE FOURTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS MAY LIMIT CITATION TO UNPUBLISHED OPINIONS. PLEASE REFER TO THE RULES OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THIS CIRCUIT.
PRIOR HISTORY: Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. (CA-03-762). Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge.
DISPOSITION: Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded.
COUNSEL: Michael Wayne Moore, Appellant Pro se.
JUDGES: Before TRAXLER, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
OPINION: [*406] PER CURIAM:
Michael Wayne Moore, a North Carolina inmate, appeals the district court's order dismissing as frivolous his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) (2000). Moore alleged a number of constitutional violations based on: (1) deliberate indifference to his various medical conditions; (2) due process violations in the classification of his confinement; (3) retaliation for contacting the mother of a fellow inmate whose son was allegedly severely beaten by prison guards; and (4) cruel and unusual punishment in the various conditions of his high security confinement. We affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand for further proceedings. [**2] *
* No part of this opinion should be read as an indication regarding our review of the merits of any of Moore's claims. As to the claims that are remanded, we conclude only that they were prematurely dismissed.
A claim having no arguable basis in fact or law may be dismissed as frivolous. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 328, 104 L. Ed. 2d 338, 109 S. Ct. 1827 (1989). We review de novo a dismissal under § 1915(e)(2). De'Lonta v. Angelone, 330 F.3d 630, 633 (4th Cir. 2003). We must accept allegations in Moore's complaint as true and draw all reasonable factual inferences [*407] in his favor. See De'Lonta v. Angelone, 330 F.3d 630, 633 (4th Cir. 2003).
A prison official unnecessarily and wantonly inflicts pain proscribed by the Eighth Amendment by acting with deliberate indifference to a prisoner's serious medical needs. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104, 50 L. Ed. 2d 251, 97 S. Ct. 285 (1976). In order to support such a claim, a prisoner "must allege acts or omissions sufficiently [**3] harmful to evidence deliberate indifference to serious medical needs." Id. at 106. We conclude that Moore sufficiently stated such a claim of deliberate indifference to his medical needs with regard to his Hepatitis C condition, his pancreatic condition, and the gout in his hand. We therefore vacate the district court's order to the extent that it dismissed these claims as frivolous and remand for further proceedings as to those claims. We find the remainder of Moore's deliberate indifference to medical needs claims meritless and affirm the dismissal of those claims.
We also vacate the district court's order dismissing Moore's retaliation claim as frivolous. For an inmate to state a colorable claim of retaliation under § 1983, the alleged retaliatory action must have been taken with regard to the exercise of some constitutionally protected right, or the retaliatory action itself must violate such a right. Adams v. Rice, 40 F.3d 72, 75 (4th Cir. 1994). We conclude Moore's allegation of retaliation has an arguable basis in fact and law. See Pell v. Procunier, 417 U.S. 817, 822, 41 L. Ed. 2d 495, 94 S. Ct. 2800 (1974); Davis v. Goord, 320 F.3d 346, 352-54 (2d Cir. 2003). [**4] We therefore vacate the district court's dismissal of this claim as frivolous and remand for further proceedings.
In order to establish an Eighth Amendment violation relating to conditions of confinement, a prisoner must establish both (1) "a serious deprivation of a basic human need" and (2) "deliberate indifference to prison conditions on the part of prison officials." Strickler v. Waters, 989 F.2d 1375, 1379 (4th Cir. 1993). The inmate must also "produce evidence of a serious or significant physical or emotional injury resulting from the challenged conditions." Id. at 1381. We have reviewed Moore's Eighth Amendment claims regarding the conditions of his confinement and find they are without merit. We affirm the district court's dismissal of those claims. We further find Moore's various due process claims regarding his prison classification to be without merit and affirm the dismissal of those claims as well.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED IN PART,
VACATED IN PART, AND REMANDED [**5]
No. 03-7699
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
97 Fed. Appx. 405; 2004 U.S. App.
March 29, 2004, Submitted
April 30, 2004, Decided
NOTICE: [**1] RULES OF THE FOURTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS MAY LIMIT CITATION TO UNPUBLISHED OPINIONS. PLEASE REFER TO THE RULES OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THIS CIRCUIT.
PRIOR HISTORY: Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. (CA-03-762). Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge.
DISPOSITION: Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded.
COUNSEL: Michael Wayne Moore, Appellant Pro se.
JUDGES: Before TRAXLER, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
OPINION: [*406] PER CURIAM:
Michael Wayne Moore, a North Carolina inmate, appeals the district court's order dismissing as frivolous his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) (2000). Moore alleged a number of constitutional violations based on: (1) deliberate indifference to his various medical conditions; (2) due process violations in the classification of his confinement; (3) retaliation for contacting the mother of a fellow inmate whose son was allegedly severely beaten by prison guards; and (4) cruel and unusual punishment in the various conditions of his high security confinement. We affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand for further proceedings. [**2] *
* No part of this opinion should be read as an indication regarding our review of the merits of any of Moore's claims. As to the claims that are remanded, we conclude only that they were prematurely dismissed.
A claim having no arguable basis in fact or law may be dismissed as frivolous. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 328, 104 L. Ed. 2d 338, 109 S. Ct. 1827 (1989). We review de novo a dismissal under § 1915(e)(2). De'Lonta v. Angelone, 330 F.3d 630, 633 (4th Cir. 2003). We must accept allegations in Moore's complaint as true and draw all reasonable factual inferences [*407] in his favor. See De'Lonta v. Angelone, 330 F.3d 630, 633 (4th Cir. 2003).
A prison official unnecessarily and wantonly inflicts pain proscribed by the Eighth Amendment by acting with deliberate indifference to a prisoner's serious medical needs. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104, 50 L. Ed. 2d 251, 97 S. Ct. 285 (1976). In order to support such a claim, a prisoner "must allege acts or omissions sufficiently [**3] harmful to evidence deliberate indifference to serious medical needs." Id. at 106. We conclude that Moore sufficiently stated such a claim of deliberate indifference to his medical needs with regard to his Hepatitis C condition, his pancreatic condition, and the gout in his hand. We therefore vacate the district court's order to the extent that it dismissed these claims as frivolous and remand for further proceedings as to those claims. We find the remainder of Moore's deliberate indifference to medical needs claims meritless and affirm the dismissal of those claims.
We also vacate the district court's order dismissing Moore's retaliation claim as frivolous. For an inmate to state a colorable claim of retaliation under § 1983, the alleged retaliatory action must have been taken with regard to the exercise of some constitutionally protected right, or the retaliatory action itself must violate such a right. Adams v. Rice, 40 F.3d 72, 75 (4th Cir. 1994). We conclude Moore's allegation of retaliation has an arguable basis in fact and law. See Pell v. Procunier, 417 U.S. 817, 822, 41 L. Ed. 2d 495, 94 S. Ct. 2800 (1974); Davis v. Goord, 320 F.3d 346, 352-54 (2d Cir. 2003). [**4] We therefore vacate the district court's dismissal of this claim as frivolous and remand for further proceedings.
In order to establish an Eighth Amendment violation relating to conditions of confinement, a prisoner must establish both (1) "a serious deprivation of a basic human need" and (2) "deliberate indifference to prison conditions on the part of prison officials." Strickler v. Waters, 989 F.2d 1375, 1379 (4th Cir. 1993). The inmate must also "produce evidence of a serious or significant physical or emotional injury resulting from the challenged conditions." Id. at 1381. We have reviewed Moore's Eighth Amendment claims regarding the conditions of his confinement and find they are without merit. We affirm the district court's dismissal of those claims. We further find Moore's various due process claims regarding his prison classification to be without merit and affirm the dismissal of those claims as well.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED IN PART,
VACATED IN PART, AND REMANDED [**5]