Nelson v. Lois DeBerry Special Needs Facility
3:12-cv-00795
M.D. Tenn.Sep 30, 2013Background
- Plaintiff Oswald Urban Nelson, a state prisoner, sued the Lois M. DeBerry Special Needs Facility and multiple prison staff alleging deliberate indifference and failure to protect after being placed in and returned from segregation and later assaulted; he seeks monetary damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
- Events: Nelson was placed in protective/administrative segregation for ~2 months after reporting cellmates for drug use and receiving threats; he was returned to Unit 4 and shortly thereafter assaulted, treated in an ER, and alleges inadequate follow-up medical and mental-health placement.
- Defendants named: the facility (DSNF) and 14 individuals (classification and custody staff, medical staff, wardens, and grievance officers), all sued in individual and official capacities.
- Procedural posture: Magistrate Judge conducted initial PLRA review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and § 1997e(c) and recommended dismissal of many defendants for failure to state a claim, allowing only individual-capacity claims against three defendants to proceed.
- Key factual findings: allegations against most defendants were conclusory or lacked personal involvement or a constitutional basis (no protected liberty interest in assignment, no adequate showing of subjective deliberate indifference for many defendants).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DSNF (the facility) is a proper § 1983 defendant | DSNF allowed events leading to harm on its property | Facility is a building, not a person amenable to § 1983 liability | Dismissed: DSNF not a suable person under § 1983 |
| Official-capacity monetary claims against state employees | Nelson seeks damages from defendants in official capacity | Official-capacity claims equate to suit against the state, barred by Eleventh Amendment | Dismissed: official-capacity claims for damages fail |
| Failure-to-protect / Eighth Amendment against classification and supervisory staff (e.g., Erwin, Bambee, Steele, Ryan, Lanier, Ganaway, Maxwell) | Returning Nelson to Unit 4 and denying mental-health placement showed deliberate indifference and caused assault | Short stay in segregation and housing decisions do not create protected liberty interest; lack of facts showing defendants knew of specific risk from the assailant | Dismissed: no plausible deliberate-indifference or due-process claim against these defendants |
| Eighth Amendment / deliberate indifference by officers who witnessed assault (McCoy, Perez) | Officers observed assault and failed to intervene or call a code | Defendants could argue lack of knowledge or opportunity; contested facts on intervention | Allowed to proceed: plaintiff stated colorable Eighth Amendment failure-to-protect claims in individual capacity |
| Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference by medical staff (Dr. Barneard) | Treated in ER but allegedly denied follow-up care, pain meds, ice — deliberate indifference to serious medical need | Medical staff may contend care was provided and follow-up not constitutionally deficient | Allowed to proceed: Magistrate found a colorable § 1983 medical-care claim against Dr. Barneard |
| Grievance-screening and due-process (Campbell, Davis) | Grievances marked "inappropriate" and returned, violating due process | No constitutional right to an effective grievance procedure; screening alone is not actionable | Dismissed: no § 1983 claim based on grievance handling |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standard: factual matter required to state a plausible claim)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading requires more than labels and conclusions)
- Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (1995) (when confinement conditions implicate a protected liberty interest)
- Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994) (prison officials liable for failure to protect only if deliberately indifferent)
- Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976) (deliberate indifference to serious medical needs violates the Eighth Amendment)
- Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978) (municipal/ entity liability requires an official policy or custom)
- Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159 (1985) (official-capacity suit is suit against the entity; Eleventh Amendment implications)
- Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337 (1981) (Eighth Amendment standard for conditions of confinement)