Welch v. Robinson
2:24-cv-00500
D. Nev.Apr 14, 2025Background
- Plaintiff Kentrell D. Welch, an inmate in Nevada Department of Corrections facilities, alleges inadequate medical care for his left eye between 2018 and 2024, resulting in a detached retina and serious vision issues.
- The alleged events occurred while Welch was housed at three different prisons: Ely State Prison, High Desert State Prison, and Northern Nevada Correctional Center.
- Welch claims various symptoms, including pain and blindness risk, and attributes mistreatment or neglect to Dr. Leakes, an unnamed optometrist, and Dentist Robinson.
- Procedurally, Welch filed suit pro se under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming violation of his Eighth Amendment rights, and seeks monetary damages.
- The court screened Welch’s First Amended Complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, finding it did not state a colorable claim but allowed leave to amend.
- Welch is permitted to submit a Second Amended Complaint by May 30, 2025.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference | Welch did not receive adequate eye care for a serious condition | No deliberate indifference or insufficient allegations | Plaintiff failed to state a claim; dismissal with leave to amend |
| Personal involvement of defendants | Each named/unnamed defendant was involved in his mistreatment | No facts suggesting personal involvement | No adequate pleadings for personal involvement; claim dismissed |
| Sufficiency of factual support | Allegations are sufficient to infer deliberate indifference | Plaintiff’s claims are conclusory, lack specifics | Allegations lacked facts; mere belief/labels are insufficient |
| Motivation for denial of outside care | Optometrist denied referral to save money, evidencing indifference | No factual support for this purported motivation | Court cannot infer discrimination without factual support |
Key Cases Cited
- Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976) (medical negligence does not rise to an Eighth Amendment violation; requires deliberate indifference)
- Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994) (objective and subjective components for Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (complaints require more than labels and conclusions; must state plausible facts)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (legal conclusions must be supported by factual allegations for plausibility)
- Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040 (9th Cir. 1989) (Section 1983 liability requires personal participation by defendant)
- Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091 (9th Cir. 2006) (deliberate indifference can be established by denial, delay, or interference with medical treatment)