Davis v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc.
2:15-cv-09756
S.D.W. VaMar 9, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Ronald C. Davis, an inmate at Mount Olive Correctional Complex, filed a pro se § 1983 complaint alleging denial of treatment for chronic Hepatitis C.
- Plaintiff sought only injunctive relief: that the court "get me treatment." He filed in forma pauperis; Wexford Health Sources, Inc. was substituted as defendant.
- Wexford moved to dismiss, arguing it is not a "person" under § 1983 (and in any event, no facts alleged show deliberate indifference or an unconstitutional policy/custom). The motion was unopposed.
- The complaint contains only conclusory allegations that Davis has Hepatitis C and wants treatment; it does not allege denial of care, a Wexford policy, or facts showing subjective deliberate indifference.
- The court applied Twombly/Iqbal pleading standards and Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference framework for inmate medical claims and found the pleadings insufficient.
- The court granted Wexford’s motion and dismissed the complaint without prejudice, noting the plaintiff may refile with heed to pleading requirements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendant is a "person" under § 1983 | Davis did not specifically dispute; sued the prison medical provider for lack of treatment | Wexford: not a proper § 1983 person or, alternatively, no facts showing liability | Court treated Wexford as acting under color of state law but required policy/custom allegations for corporate liability; dismissal on other grounds |
| Whether complaint alleges denial of medical care (Eighth Amendment) | Davis: has Hepatitis C and requests treatment | Wexford: complaint fails to allege he was denied treatment or that treatment was so deficient as to be deliberate indifference | Court: allegations too conclusory; fails to state a deliberate-indifference claim |
| Whether corporate liability under § 1983 is pleaded | Implied: hold Wexford liable for employees' conduct | Wexford: corporate liability requires an official policy or custom causing the violation; respondeat superior insufficient | Court: no allegations of an unconstitutional policy/custom; corporate liability not established |
| Whether pro se plaintiff should get leave to amend | Plaintiff did not oppose motion or request amendment | Defendant did not oppose dismissal without prejudice | Court dismissed without prejudice (noting dismissal without leave to amend is generally without prejudice for pro se plaintiffs) |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (establishes plausibility pleading standard)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (clarifies that conclusory allegations are insufficient)
- Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (Eighth Amendment duty to provide adequate medical care)
- Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (deliberate indifference to serious medical needs actionable under Eighth Amendment)
- West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42 (private contractors providing medical care act under color of state law)
- Austin v. Paramount Parks, Inc., 195 F.3d 715 (corporate liability under § 1983 requires an official policy or custom)
- Miltier v. Beorn, 896 F.2d 848 (deliberate indifference requires treatment so grossly incompetent as to shock the conscience)
- Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841 (disagreement over diagnosis/treatment does not amount to constitutional violation)