John Ruddin Brown v. Lisa JohnsonJohn Ruddin Brown v. Lisa Johnson
- Reporters:
- , , ,
- Before:
- Pryor
This appeal presents two issues of first impression in this circuit regarding the Prison Litigation Reform Act: first, whether a prisoner, who seeks to file a complaint
in forma pauperis,
is barred by the PLRA from amending his complaint before either a responsive pleading or an order of dismissal has been filed; and, second, whether a prisoner who suffers from human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and hepatitis and alleges both withdrawal of treatment in deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs and “imminent danger of serious physical injury” is barred, under
I. BACKGROUND
John Ruddin Brown entered the Georgia State Prison on November 8, 2001. His medical records showed that he had HIV and hepatitis. On September 5, 2002, Brown was examined by Dr. Walton, who noticed a decline in Brown’s health and prescribed medication for HIV and hepatitis. On October 30, 2002, Brown was seen by defendant Dr. Presnell, who stopped the prescribed medication.
On June 2, 2003, Brown filed an action under
On July 7, 2003, the magistrate judge recommended that the petition to. proceed
in forma pauperis
be denied and that the complaint be dismissed without prejudice because Brown had at least three strikes under
On July 15, 2003, the district court denied Brown’s motion, to amend his complaint because Brown’s complaint was-subject to dismissal under the PLRA,
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
This Court reviews the denial of a motion to amend a complaint for abuse of discretion. Steger v. Gen. Elec. Co., 318 F.3d 1066, 1080 (11th Cir.2003). We review the interpretation of the filing fee provision of the PLRA de novo. Dupree v. Palmer, 284 F.3d 1234, 1235 (11th Cir. 2002). The sua sponte dismissal of an action for failure to state a claim is also reviewed de novo, and we must view the allegations in the complaint as true. Hughes v. Lott, 350 F.3d 1157, 1159-60 (11th Cir.2003) (citing Mitchell v. Farcass, 112 F.3d 1483, 1490 (11th Cir.1997)).
III. DISCUSSION
The- resolution of this appeal hinges on Brown’s status as a prisoner, who has filed three or more frivolous lawsuits and seeks to proceed
in forma pauperis;
his status triggers three separate provisions of the PLRA. The first provision,
[i]n no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action or appeal a judgment in a civil action or proceeding under this section if the prisoner has, on 3 or more prior occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought an action or appeal in a court of the United States that was dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical injury.
The district court invoked two of these provisions in the dismissal of Brown’s complaint. The district court ruled that
A. Whether the PLRA Bars a Prisoner From Amending His Complaint Under
Under
This Court has previously determined that “[sjection 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) does not allow the district court to dismiss an
in forma pauperis
complaint without allowing leave to amend when required by
Several of our sister circuits have held that the screening provisions of the PLRA neither repeal
We agree with the majority of circuits that the PLRA does not preclude the district court from granting’ a motion to amend. Nothing in the language of the PLRA repeals
B. What Constitutes Imminent Danger of Serious Physical Injury?
Although the Second, Third, Fifth, Seventh, Eighth, and Eleventh Circuits have determined that a prisoner must allege a present imminent danger, as opposed to a past danger, to proceed under
The Eighth Circuit addressed the question of serious physical injury on three separate occasions. In
Ashley,
the prisoner ¡alleged that prison officials repeatedly placed him in proximity to inmates on his enemy alert list and that he was twice attacked, once-with a sharpened, nine-inch screwdriver and once with a butcher knife, and the court ruled that he had alleged imminent danger of serious physical harm. 147 F.3d at 717. In
McAlphin,
the prisoner alleged that he was denied dental extractions, that his gums became so infected he eventually needed five extractions, and two of the extractions had not been sched
With this persuasive authority in mind, we turn to Brown’s complaint, which we must construe liberally and the allegations of which we must accept as true. See Jackson v. Reese, 608 F.2d 159, 160 (5th Cir.1979); Hughes, 350 F.3d at 1159-60. In his complaint, Brown alleges that he has HIV and hepatitis. He alleges that on September 5, 2002, because his condition was deteriorating, he was prescribed medications for HIV and hepatitis by Dr. Walton. Brown alleges that, on October 30, 2002, Dr. Presnell stopped the prescribed treatment and, as a result, Brown suffered prolonged skin and newly developed scalp infections, severe pain in the eyes and vision problems, fatigue and prolonged stomach pains. In his amended complaint, Brown alleges that if not treated he would be exposed to “opportunistic infections, such as pneumonia, esophageal candidiasis, salmonella, and wasting syndrome,” which would cause him to die sooner. Brown also states that he followed the proper grievance procedure, and in response to his grievance, was informed that “the physician [had seen him] recently, [he would] be seen in the next chronic clinic, [and the warden did] not feel that further action [was] warranted.” Liberally construed, Brown alleges a total withdrawal of treatment for serious diseases, as a result of which he suffers from severe ongoing complications, is more susceptible to various illnesses, and his condition will rapidly deteriorate.
The defendants offer two rebuttals. The defendants argue that these allegations fail to allege imminent danger of serious physical injury because skin problems do not constitute serious injury and Brown’s allegations of eye problems are too vague. The defendants also argue that, “although [Brown’s] illness may ultimately lead to serious physical problems and even death, Brown’s allegations do not show that his treatment puts him in imminent danger.” These arguments fail.
Although some of the specific physical conditions about which Brown complains may not constitute serious injury, the issue is whether his complaint, as a whole, alleges imminent danger of serious physical injury. Viewed together, the afflictions of which Brown currently complains, including his HIV and hepatitis, and the alleged danger of more serious afflictions if he is not treated constitute imminent danger of serious physical injury. That Brown’s illnesses are already serious does not preclude him from arguing that his condition is worsening more rapidly as a result of the complete withdrawal of treatment. The amended complaint alleges imminent danger of serious physical injury.
The determination that Brown alleged imminent danger of serious physical injury does not end our inquiry. We may affirm the district court on any ground that finds support in the record. Jaffke v. Dunham, 352 U.S. 280, 281, 77 S.Ct. 307, 308, 1 L.Ed.2d 314 (1957). If Brown’s amended complaint fails to state a claim for deliberate indifference, then the dismissal of the amended complaint must be affirmed.
We must consider whether Brown states a valid claim under the Eighth Amendment. It is well established that “deliberate indifference to serious medical needs of prisoners constitutes the ‘unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain’ ... proscribed by the Eighth Amendment.”
Estelle v. Gamble,
429 U.S. 97, 104, 97 S.Ct. 285, 291, 50 L.Ed.2d 251 (1976) (citation and footnotes omitted). A prisoner states a valid claim, under
“To show that a prison official acted with deliberate indifference to serious medical needs, a plaintiff must satisfy both an objective and a subjective inquiry.” Farrow v. West, 320 F.3d 1235, 1243 (11th Cir.2003). First, the plaintiff must prove an objectively serious medical need. Id. Second, the plaintiff must prove that the prison official acted with deliberate indifference to that need. Id.
“A serious medical need is considered ‘one that has been diagnosed by a physician as mandating treatment or one that is so obvious that even a lay person would easily recognize the necessity for a doctor’s attention.’ ” Id. (citing Hill v. Dekalb Reg’l Youth Det. Ctr., 40 F.3d 1176, 1187 (11th Cir.1994)). In either case, “the medical need must be one that, if left unattended, pos[es] a substantial risk of serious harm.” Id. (citation and internal quotations marks omitted). HIV and hepatitis meet either of these definitions. The defendants wisely do not deny that Brown has serious medical needs.
To establish the second element, deliberate indifference to the serious medical need, the prisoner must prove three facts: (1) subjective knowledge of a risk of serious harm; (2) disregard of that risk; and (3) by conduct that is more than mere negligence. McElligott v. Foley, 182 F.3d 1248, 1255 (11th Cir.1999). The defendants were aware of Brown’s diagnosis with HIV and hepatitis, but completely withdrew the prescribed treatment for Brown’s illness. Brown is not receiving any treatment apart from clinic visits, despite his deteriorating condition.
The defendants erroneously characterize Brown’s allegation of deliberate indifference as nothing more than “mere[] disagree[ment] with the treatment prescribed.” Brown complains of complete withdrawal of treatment. “Deliberate indifference may be established by a showing of grossly inadequate care as well as by a decision to take an easier but less efficacious course of treatment- Moreover, ‘[w]hen the need for treatment is obvious, medical care which is so cursory as to amount to no treatment at all may amount to deliberate indifference.’ ”
Id.
(quoting
Mandel v. Doe,
888 F.2d 783, 789 (11th Cir.1989)). Taking the allegations in the complaint as true, the continuing disregard of Brown’s HIV and hepatitis constitutes deliberate indifference. We do not, therefore, find an alternate basis on which
IV. CONCLUSION
Because’ the district court abused its discretion in-denying Brown the right to amend his. complaint, under