United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Northern Division
OPINION AND ORDER OF SUMMARY DISMISSAL
L. LUDINGTON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Weemas, who is presently confined at Michigan's Center
for Forensic Psychiatry, has filed a pro se civil rights
complaint. The complaint names Nurse King as Defendant, and
it states in full: “Nurse King gave me the wrong
med's after that my heart rate drop[ped and] my tongue is
[still] tender.” ECF No. 1 at PageID.3. For the reasons
stated below, the Court will summarily dismiss the complaint
under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b) for
Plaintiff's failure to state a claim.
the Prison Litigation Reform Act, Pub. L. No. 104-134, 110
Stat. 1321 (1996) (PLRA), the Court is required to dismiss
any prisoner action brought under federal law if the
complaint is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted, or seeks monetary relief
from a defendant immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1915(e)(2), 1915A; 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c).
The Court must read plaintiff's pro se complaint
indulgently, see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520
(1972), and accept plaintiff's allegations as true,
unless they are clearly irrational or wholly incredible.
Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992).
threadbare complaint alleges only that she was administered
the wrong medication, and that it lowered her heart rate and
caused tenderness in her tongue. To state a claim under 42
U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege the violation of
a right secured by the federal Constitution or laws and must
show that the deprivation was committed by a person acting
under color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S.
42, 48 (1988); Street v. Corr. Corp. of Am., 102
F.3d 810, 814 (6th Cir. 1996).
complaint need not contain detailed factual allegations, a
plaintiff's allegations must include more than labels and
conclusions. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
544, 555 (2007); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,
678 (2009) (“Threadbare recitals of the elements of a
cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do
not suffice.”). The court must determine whether the
complaint contains “enough facts to state a claim to
relief that is plausible on its face.”
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A claim has facial
plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that
allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the
defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679. “[W]here the
well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer more than
the mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint has alleged
- but it has not ‘show[n]' - that the pleader is
entitled to relief.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679
(quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2)); see also Hill v.
Lappin, 630 F.3d 468, 470-71 (6th Cir. 2010) (holding
that the Twombly/Iqbal plausibility
standard applies to dismissals of prisoner cases on initial
review under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b)(1) and
complaint fails to state a constitutional claim. She does not
allege that Defendant intentionally or with deliberate
indifference gave her the wrong medication. “The Due
Process Clause is simply not implicated by a negligent act of
an official causing unintended loss of or injury to life,
liberty, or property.” Daniels v. Williams,
474 U.S. 327, 328 (1986); see also Lewellen v.
Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County,
Tenn., 34 F.3d 345, 348 (6th Cir. 1994) (“it is
now firmly settled that injury caused by negligence does not
constitute a ‘deprivation' of any constitutionally
protected interest.”). Likewise, a complaint that a
medical provider has been negligent in treating a medical
condition does not state a valid claim under the Eighth
Amendment. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104-05
(1976). Thus, an Eighth Amendment claim of deliberate
indifference must be supported by more than mere negligence.
See Harrison v. Ash, 539 F.3d 510, 522 (6th Cir.
2008). Plaintiff fails to allege that Defendant subjectively
perceived the facts giving rise to an inference of a
substantial risk to Plaintiff, and that she actually and
subjectively drew the inference. See Farmer v.
Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994). Accordingly, the
complaint fails to state a constitutional claim against
Defendant, and the action is therefore subject to summary
it is ORDERED that the complaint is
summarily DISMISSED under 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b)(1).
further ORDERED that an appeal from this
decision would be frivolous and could not be taken in good
faith. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3); Coppedg ...