United States District Court, D. New Hampshire
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
K. Johnstone United States Magistrate Judge
the court is pro se plaintiff Jarrell Wilson's amended
complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging
that prison medical staff have violated his constitutional
rights. See § 1983 Compl. (Doc. No. 1), as
amended by Doc. No. 5 (collectively “complaint”).
The complaint is before this magistrate judge for preliminary
review, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and
LR 4.3(d)(1). Also before this magistrate judge for a report
and recommendation is Wilson's motion for preliminary
injunctive relief (Doc. No. 4). See Sept. 17, 2019
is a prisoner of the State of New Hampshire. At all relevant
times he was housed at the New Hampshire State Prison for Men
alleges that on an unspecified date, he was sucker- punched
by another inmate and suffered a broken jaw. He spent five
and a half weeks in the prison's medical wing before
surgery was performed on his jaw. He alleges he was in severe
pain and that prison medical staff knew of and disregarded
his medical needs during that time. Wilson also alleges that
the surgery was botched and that his jaw is misaligned as a
result. He asserts that he remains in severe pain due to the
misalignment, but prison medical staff refuse him treatment
for the jaw.
claims that prison medical staff have harmed him mentally,
physically, and emotionally. He seeks compensatory damages in
the amount of $180, 000 for his pain and suffering and
punitive damages in the amount of $180, 000. He also seeks
injunctive relief in the form of an order that he receive
reconstructive surgery on his jaw.
September 17, 2019, Wilson filed a motion for preliminary
injunctive relief against Michelle Edmark, Warden of NHSP,
and Robbin Maddous, identified as the head of finance at
NHSP. According to the motion, Wilson pled guilty to numerous
disciplinary code violations, and in response, Edmark and
Maddous began, in 2015, withdrawing 50 percent of all
deposits made to his prisoner financial account. Wilson
contends these withdrawals are unlawful without his consent.
He seeks declaratory relief and an order requiring Edmark and
Maddous to return all the money withdrawn from his account.
Preliminary Review of § 1983 Complaint
Preliminary Review Standard
court reviews complaints filed by pro se plaintiffs to
determine, among other things, whether the plaintiff has
asserted any claim upon which relief might be granted.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), LR 4.3(d)(1). In
determining whether a pro se pleading states a claim, the
court construes the pleading liberally. See Erickson v.
Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (citation omitted).
Disregarding any legal conclusions, the court considers
whether the factual content in the pleading and inferences
reasonably drawn therefrom, taken as true, state a claim to
relief. Hernandez-Cuevas v. Taylor, 723 F.3d 91,
102-03 (1st Cir. 2013) (citations omitted).
Eighth Amendment Claim
officials violate the Eighth Amendment if they display
‘deliberate indifference' to a prisoner's
‘serious medical needs.'” Miranda-Rivera
v. Toledo-Dávila, 813 F.3d 64, 74 (1st Cir. 2016)
(quoting Gaudreault v. Muni. of Salem, 923 F.2d 203,
208 (1st Cir. 1990)). “[T]o prove an Eighth Amendment
violation, a prisoner must satisfy both of two prongs: (1) an
objective prong that requires proof of a serious medical
need, and (2) a subjective prong that mandates a showing of
prison administrators' deliberate indifference to that
need.” Kosilek v. Spencer, 774 F.3d 63, 82
(1st Cir. 2014) (citing Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S.
97, 106 (1976); Sires v. Berman, 834 F.2d 9, 12 (1st
‘serious medical need' ‘is 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.'”
Miranda-Rivera, 813 F.3d at 74 (quoting
Gaudreault, 923 F.2d at 208). “Deliberate
indifference requires (1) that ‘the official . . . be
aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a
substantial risk ...