Chambers v. Ishee et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
STATESVILLE DIVISION
CIVIL CASE NO. 5:23-cv-00005-MR
PATRICK J. CHAMBERS, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. )
)
TODD ISHEE, et al., ) ORDER
)
Defendants. )
________________________________ )
THIS MATTER is before the Court on the pro se Plaintiff’s Motion for
Leave to File an Amended Complaint [Doc. 26], and on initial review of the
proposed Amended Complaint [Doc. 27]. The Plaintiff is proceeding in forma
pauperis. [Doc. 8].
I. BACKGROUND
The incarcerated pro se Plaintiff filed this civil rights action pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that multiple Defendants were deliberately
indifferent to a serious medical need at the Alexander Correctional
Institution.1 The Complaint passed initial review against Defendants Lisa
Huffman and Kelly A. Towery for deliberate indifference to a serious medical
1 The Plaintiff presently resides at the Tabor Correctional Institution.
Case 5:23-cv-00005-MR Document 36 Filed 12/06/23 Page 1 of 8

2
need, and the remaining claims were dismissed without prejudice. [Doc. 9].
The Plaintiff made attempts to amend on a piecemeal basis, which were
denied. [See, e.g., Docs. 14, 17, 21, 22]. On August 21, 2023, the Court
granted the Plaintiff 30 days within which to file a superseding Amended
Complaint. [Doc. 25].
On September 12, 2023, the Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Leave
to Amend [Doc. 26] and proposed Amended Complaint [Doc. 27]. The
Motion for Leave to Amend will be denied as moot insofar as the Court
previously granted the Plaintiff leave to amend.2 [See Doc. 25]. The
Amended Complaint is now before the Court for initial review.
The Plaintiff again names as Defendants: DAC Commissioner Todd
Ishee; Alexander CI Superintendent Eric Dye; medical provider Richard
Bates; nurses Cheryl Kaufman, Iris Saine and Kelly A. Towery; CHAs
McKensie Houston and Lisa Huffman;3 correctional officers FNU Caban,
FNU Slater, and FNU Velasco; and correctional sergeant FNU Roberts. He
asserts claims for “8th Amendment, 8th Amendment – Deliberate
Indifference.” [Doc. 27 at 5]. As injury, he claims:
2 Defendant Huffman’s Response opposing the Motion to Amend [Doc. 29] is likewise
moot.
3 The Plaintiff also refers to Defendant Huffman as a “nurse.” [Doc. 27 at 5].
Case 5:23-cv-00005-MR Document 36 Filed 12/06/23 Page 2 of 8

3
Plaintiff had stomach pains, swelling and redness of eyes and
trouble breathing, decreased sexual ability and desire and
irregular breathing, anxiety, short tempered and lost of
consciousness, emotional distress, chest pain paranoia, and
depression, Plaintiff had to be monitored and placed on gurney
and giving medication.
[Doc. 27 at 10] (errors uncorrected). He seeks compensatory, nominal, and
punitive damages, and unspecified injunctive relief.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
Because the Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, the Court must
review the Amended Complaint to determine whether it is subject to
dismissal on the grounds that it is “frivolous or malicious [or] fails to state a
claim on which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Furthermore,
under § 1915A the Court must conduct an initial review and identify and
dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if it is frivolous,
malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or seeks
monetary relief from a defendant who is immune to such relief. 28 U.S.C. §
1915A.
In its frivolity review, this Court must determine whether a complaint
raises an indisputably meritless legal theory or is founded upon clearly
baseless factual contentions, such as fantastic or delusional scenarios.
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327-28 (1989). Furthermore, a pro se
complaint must be construed liberally. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520
Case 5:23-cv-00005-MR Document 36 Filed 12/06/23 Page 3 of 8

4
(1972). However, the liberal construction requirement will not permit a
district court to ignore a clear failure to allege facts in his Complaint which
set forth a claim that is cognizable under federal law. Weller v. Dep’t of Soc.
Servs., 901 F.2d 387 (4th Cir. 1990).
III. DISCUSSION
To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that he was
deprived of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States,
and that the alleged deprivation was committed by a “person” acting under
color of state law. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983; Am. Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Sullivan,
526 U.S. 40, 49-50 (1999); Health & Hosp. Corp. of Marion Cnty. v. Talevski,
599 U.S. 166 (2023).
The body of the Amended Complaint refers to individuals who are not
named as defendants in the caption as required by Rule 10(a) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure. [See, e.g., Doc. 27 at 10 (referring to “Psych.
Therapist Stephen Coates” and “Nurse Welch (main medical)”)]; see Fed. R.
Civ. P. 10(a) (“The title of the complaint must name all the parties[.]”); Myles
v. United States, 416 F.3d 551 (7th Cir. 2005) (“[T]o make someone a party
the plaintiff must specify him in the caption and arrange for service of
process.”); Perez v. Humphries, No. 3:18-cv-107-GCM, 2018 WL 4705560,
at *1 (W.D.N.C. Oct. 1, 2018) (“A plaintiff’s failure to name a defendant in the
Case 5:23-cv-00005-MR Document 36 Filed 12/06/23 Page 4 of 8

5
caption of a Complaint renders any action against the purported defendant
a legal nullity.”). The Court also notes that many of the Plaintiff’s allegations
use pronouns or vague terms such that the Court cannot determine the
individual(s) to whom the Plaintiff refers. [See, e.g., Doc. 27 at 7-8 (referring
to “custody staff” and “psych. therapist”); id. at 9 (referring to “Medical staff”)];
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) (requiring a “short and plain statement of the claim
showing that the pleader is entitled to relief”); Simpson v. Welch, 900 F.2d
33, 35 (4th Cir. 1990) (conclusory allegations, unsupported by specific
allegations of material fact are not sufficient); Dickson v. Microsoft Corp., 309
F.3d 193, 201-02 (4th Cir. 2002) (a pleader must allege facts, directly or
indirectly, that support each element of the claim). The allegations directed
at individuals not named as Defendants, or which are not clearly attributed
to any Defendant, are dismissed without prejudice.
The Plaintiff again asserts claims against Defendants Ishee and Dye
based on their supervisory roles. He claims that these Defendants are
“responsible for the hiring, training and supervising of medical staff and have
a legal duty to protect prisoners from cruel and unusual punishment…,” and
that they also have a “responsibility to ensure injunctive relief is carried out
including potential policy change.” [Doc. 27 at 8]. These claims are again
too vague and conclusory to proceed, and appear to rely on a respondeat
Case 5:23-cv-00005-MR Document 36 Filed 12/06/23 Page 5 of 8

6
superior theory. [Doc. 9 at 7-8]. The claims against Defendants Ishee and
Dye are, therefore, dismissed for the reasons discussed on initial review of
the Complaint. [Id.].
The Plaintiff also attempts to state a claim for deliberate indifference to
a serious medical need against medical Defendants Bates, Saine, Towery,
Kaufman, Houston and Huffman; and against correctional Defendants
Caban, Slater, Velasco, and Roberts.4 Specifically, the Plaintiff reiterates
his claims that Defendant Huffman failed to respond appropriately to a very
high blood pressure reading on September 30, 2021, and that Defendant
Towery failed to address the matter when it was brought to her attention by
correctional officers. [Doc. 27 at 7]. These claims again pass initial review
for the reasons previously discussed. [See Doc. 9 at 9].
The Plaintiff further alleges that: he “stat[ed] concerns of side effects”
to “all medical staff” named in the claim on several occasions [Doc. 27 at 7];
all of the medical Defendants had access to the HERO system and were
aware of his prescribed medications [id.]; and Defendants Kaufman, Saine,
Houston, and Bates violated his constitutional rights along with Defendants
Huffman and Towery when the Plaintiff “expressed he was concerned he
4 The deliberate indifference standard is set forth in the Order on initial review of the
Complaint. [See Doc. 9 at 4-6].
Case 5:23-cv-00005-MR Document 36 Filed 12/06/23 Page 6 of 8

7
would die, he had chest pains and needed to file a medical emergency” [id.
at 9]; he submitted a dozen sick calls “speaking of side effects” [id. at 8-9];
and he expressed his “issues” to “all medical staff prior to incident date
(10/7/21) w/ complaints informed to Richard Bates” [id.].
These allegations are too vague and conclusory to state a plausible
claim for deliberate indifference to a serious medical need against any of the
other medical Defendants. [See Doc. 9 at 8]. The claims against Defendants
Bates, Saine, Kaufman, and Houston are, therefore, dismissed.
As to the correctional Defendants, the Plaintiff claims that Defendant
Slater witnessed Defendant Huffman obtain an extremely high blood
pressure reading from him, and Plaintiff voiced that he was not feeling well
[Doc. 27 at 7]; that the Plaintiff told Defendants Caban, Roberts, and Velasco
about his hypertension history and that he was “concerned he would die,”
and “custody staff” stated that they informed Defendant Towery of the same
on “numerous occasions” [id. at 7, 9]; and that Defendants Caban, Slater,
and Velasco violated his rights along with Defendants Huffman and Towery
when the Plaintiff said he was concerned he would die, had chest pains, and
needed to file a medical emergency [id. at 9].
The Plaintiff’s allegations against these correctional Defendants are
again too vague and conclusory to state a plausible claim for deliberate
Case 5:23-cv-00005-MR Document 36 Filed 12/06/23 Page 7 of 8

8
indifference to a serious medical need. [Doc. 9 at 9-10]. The claims against
Defendants Caban, Roberts, Slater, and Velasco are therefore dismissed for
the reasons discussed previously. [Id.].
IV. CONCLUSION
In sum, the Plaintiff’s claims for deliberate indifference to a serious
medical need again pass initial review against Defendants Huffman and
Towery, and the remaining claims are dismissed without prejudice.
ORDER
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that:
1. The Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint
[Doc. 26] is DENIED AS MOOT.
2. The Amended Complaint [Doc. 27] passes initial review against
Defendants Huffman and Towery for deliberate indifference to a
serious medical need.
3. The remaining claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed: December 6, 2023
Case 5:23-cv-00005-MR Document 36 Filed 12/06/23 Page 8 of 8