United States District Court, W.D. North Carolina, Charlotte Division
D. Whitney, Chief United States District Judge
MATTER is before the Court on initial review of
Plaintiff's Amended Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e) and § 1915A, (Doc. No. 16), following
remand by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. Plaintiff is
proceeding in forma pauperis.
action is on remand from the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.
This Court initially dismissed this action without prejudice
for failure to prosecute because Plaintiff did not file his
Amended Complaint within the time prescribed by the Court.
(Doc. No. 10). Specifically, in its order of dismissal, this
Pro se Plaintiff William Carawan, Jr., a North Carolina state
inmate currently incarcerated at Lanesboro Correctional
Institution in Polkton, North Carolina, filed this action on
January 25, 2016, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Following an initial review by this Court, the Court
determined, in an order dated March 18, 2016, that the
Complaint in its current form is deficient because the
Complaint purports to bring multiple, unrelated claims
against numerous defendants, and it is, therefore, not in
compliance with FED. R. CIV. P. 20(a). The Court gave
Plaintiff thirty days in which to amend the Complaint to cure
the deficiencies. The Court expressly warned Plaintiff that
his failure to amend the Complaint in accordance with the
Court's order would result in dismissal without prejudice
and without further notice to Plaintiff. (Id.).
On April 15, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion for extension of
time to file an Amended Complaint. By order dated April 21,
2016, this Court granted Plaintiff an additional 45 days from
service of the Complaint to amend his Complaint. The Court
stated in the order that no further extensions of time would
be granted. More than 45 days have elapsed since this
Court's service of this second order, and Plaintiff has
failed to submit an Amended Complaint. Given that Plaintiff
has failed to respond to this Court's order giving him
the opportunity to cure the deficiencies in his Complaint,
this action will be dismissed without prejudice for failure
(Doc. No. 10).
appealed this Court's dismissal without prejudice. On
August 21, 2017, the Fourth Circuit remanded to this Court
after Plaintiff argued to that Court that he mailed his
Amended Complaint to this Court on April 27, 2016, in
accordance with this Court's order. (Doc. No. 15). No
such Amended Complaint was ever filed on this Court's
docket, and this Court has no record of receiving any such
Amended Complaint. Nevertheless, the Fourth Circuit's
order on remand directed this Court to “consider
Carawan's legal papers mailed to the Court by prison
officials on April 27, 2016, and then to determine whether
the amended pleadings, if there were any, complied with the
court's orders of March 18, 2016.” (Id. at
2). Following remand by the Fourth Circuit, Plaintiff filed
his Amendment Complaint in this Court on August 31, 2017.
Accordingly, this Court, upon order of the Fourth Circuit, is
conducting an initial review of the Amended Complaint.
Plaintiff William Carawan, Jr., is a North Carolina prisoner
incarcerated at Tabor Correctional Institution in Tabor City,
North Carolina. Plaintiff filed his Amended Complaint on
August 31, 2017, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, naming
the following Defendants: (1) FNU Mitchell, identified as the
Superintendent of Lanesboro Correctional Institution; (2) FNU
Miller, identified as the Medical Director of Lanesboro; (3)
and FNU McCoy, identified as a Unit Manager at Lanesboro.
(Doc. No. 16 at 3-4). Plaintiff purports to bring a claim
against Defendants for deliberate indifference to serious
medical needs in violation of his Eighth Amendment rights.
Plaintiff alleges the following facts in the Amended
Mr. Mitchell, Mr. Miller, and Mr. McCoy all operated with
practices which went against policy in not posting sick call
notification as rules state. I filled multiple sick calls
about chronic back pain and having medications renewed from
November of 2014 which weren't addressed until January
23, 2015, which I was considered as a no-show due to my not
knowing I had an appointment. I was in school. The act of
deliberate indifference to my medical needs which were
chronic due to the back pain lasting over a course of years
violated my 8thAmendment rights. Several notices
were sent to the medical director yet nothing was done. I
suffered through much pain as a result of the lack of medical
response and to this day I still can't get my medical
issues addressed in a timely fashion. Medical records will
show my efforts of gaining relief if they filed them. Due
process was violated in the notification not being given to
me or anyone else for that matter of our sick call
appointments. The medical staff are allowed to play games
with people's sick calls like it's a joke here. Staff
are aware that they are not addressing medical issues in a
timely manner and of the suffering that's being caused.
(Id. at 2-3). Plaintiff seeks compensatory and
punitive damages as well as injunctive and declaratory
relief. (Id. at 4).
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, the Court must
review the Complaint to determine whether it is subject to
dismissal on the grounds that it is “frivolous or
malicious [or] fails to state a claim on which relief may be
granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Furthermore,
§ 1915A requires an initial review of a “complaint
in a civil action in which a prisoner seeks redress from a
governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental
entity, ” and the court must identify cognizable claims
or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if
the complaint is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted; or seeks monetary
relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. In
its frivolity review, this Court must determine whether the
Complaint raises an indisputably meritless legal theory or is
founded upon clearly baseless factual contentions, such as
fantastic or delusional scenarios. Neitzke v.
Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327-28 (1989).