Cockroft v. Starkey
1:21-cv-00676
S.D. OhioApr 1, 2022Background:
- Plaintiff Anthony Cockroft, an inmate, alleges that on Dec. 30, 2020 at Warren Correctional Institution he was transported in a Gator by C/O Billy Starkey, restrained by handcuffs and a waist belt but not secured with a seatbelt, and fell from the vehicle when Starkey backed up.
- Cockroft claims head and back injuries; he was taken to the infirmary, examined by Nurse Rebecca Craft (who had him rest), and then seen the next day by Dr. William Harlan, who allegedly focused on blood pressure and provided no pain treatment.
- A conduct report for disobeying orders after the fall was issued but later dismissed by the Rules Infraction Board.
- Plaintiff filed a pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit against Starkey, Warden Wanda Jackson, Nurse Craft, and Dr. Harlan and moved to amend; IFP was granted.
- The magistrate judge performed screening under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A and concluded the Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim against Dr. Harlan may proceed, but recommended dismissal of the other defendants/claims.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Dr. Harlan was deliberately indifferent to Cockroft's serious medical needs | Harlan ignored Cockroft's complaints of back pain and a head knot and provided no pain treatment | Implicit defense that treatment did occur or was medically adequate (no detailed defense in screening) | Proceed: Complaint states a plausible Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim against Harlan in his individual capacity |
| Whether Starkey’s failure to secure a seatbelt or his driving supports a §1983 claim | Starkey failed to secure Cockroft and his conduct caused the fall and injuries | Failure to seatbelt is at most negligence and does not violate the Constitution | Dismissed: Failure to seatbelt / negligent transportation is not a constitutional violation under §1983 |
| Whether issuance of a conduct report by Starkey violated due process | Cockroft challenges the conduct report as wrongful | Erroneous or fabricated allegations alone do not establish a constitutional deprivation absent loss of a protected liberty interest | Dismissed: No allegation that the report led to a protected liberty interest deprivation; claim fails under §1983 |
| Whether Nurse Craft or Warden Jackson are liable under §1983 for medical/duty failures | Craft provided inadequate care; Jackson supervisorial liability | Medical attention was provided (Craft examined and had him rest); no facts allege personal involvement by Jackson | Dismissed: Craft’s conduct does not rise to deliberate indifference; Jackson not alleged to have engaged in wrongdoing |
Key Cases Cited
- Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25 (explains screening and dismissal authority for IFP litigants)
- Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (standard for frivolous claims under §1915)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standard: plausibility requirement)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading standard and ‘‘plausible’’ claim requirement)
- Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference standard for medical care)
- Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (liberty interest analysis for prison disciplinary actions)
- Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (pro se pleadings judged less stringently)
- Hill v. Lappin, 630 F.3d 468 (applying Rule 12(b)(6) standards to §1915 screening)
- 16630 Southfield Ltd. P’Ship v. Flagstar Bank, 727 F.3d 502 (pleading demands and plausibility in Sixth Circuit)
- Spadafore v. Gardner, 330 F.3d 849 (§1983 requires deprivation of a federal right)
- Westlake v. Lucas, 537 F.2d 857 (courts defer to medical judgments; negligence not Eighth Amendment violation)
- McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601 (standards for denying IFP appeals as not taken in good faith)
- Ritchie v. Wickstrom, 938 F.2d 689 (negligence insufficient for §1983 liability)
- Warren v. Doe, [citation="28 F. App'x 463"] (affirming dismissal where allegations showed mere negligence)