Click Back Button to Return to Publication
UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
DOUGLAS MCCALLUM,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
A.C. GILLESS, JR., Sheriff, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
38 Fed. Appx. 213
March 21, 2002, Filed
NOTICE:
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT
PUBLICATION. SIXTH CIRCUIT RULE 28(g) LIMITS CITATION TO SPECIFIC SITUATIONS.
PLEASE SEE RULE 28(g) BEFORE CITING IN A PROCEEDING IN A COURT IN THE SIXTH
CIRCUIT. IF CITED, A COPY MUST BE SERVED ON OTHER PARTIES AND THE COURT. THIS
NOTICE IS TO BE PROMINENTLY DISPLAYED IF THIS DECISION IS REPRODUCED.
Douglas McCallum, a pro se Tennessee prisoner, appeals the district
court order dismissing his civil rights case filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983. This case has been referred to a panel of the court pursuant to Rule
34(j)(1), Rules of the Sixth Circuit. Upon examination, this panel unanimously
agrees that oral argument is not needed. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a).
Seeking compensatory and
punitive damages, McCallum sued Shelby County, Tennessee Sheriff A.C. Gilless,
Shelby County Mayor Jim Rout, Chief Jailer Marron Hopkins, Shelby County Jail
medical staff and jailers, and attorney
Randall Salky. McCallum alleged that the defendants failed to provide
him with adequate health care when he was incarcerated at the Shelby County
Jail. The district court granted McCallum in forma pauperis status, screened
the complaint, and dismissed the complaint as frivolous. See 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2). The court noted that the complaint lacked factual
allegations and did not include an attachment as indicated. The same day the
order of dismissal was entered, McCallum's attachment to his [*215] complaint
was filed. The district court construed it as a motion for reconsideration,
examined McCallum's factual allegations, and denied the motion. The court held
that none of the named defendants could be liable to McCallum and that service
of process could not be made on the unnamed medical staff.
In
his timely appeal, McCallum argues that the district court did not review the
facts of his complaint before dismissing it.
This court reviews de novo a district court's decision to dismiss under
28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A.
McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 604 (6th Cir. 1997). Upon review,
we conclude that the district court properly dismissed McCallum's complaint as
frivolous with respect to his claims against the named defendants, but that the
court should have dismissed the complaint without prejudice with respect to his
allegations against the medical staff.
First, we agree with the
district court that McCallum failed to demonstrate that he exhausted his
administrative remedies before suing in federal court. See 42 U.S.C. §
1997e(a); Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 149 L. Ed. 2d 958, 121 S. Ct. 1819,
1823 (2001); Wyatt v. Leonard, 193 F.3d 876, 877 (6th Cir. 1999). McCallum indicated that he filed
a written grievance to a counselor and talked to jail officials and medical
staff, but did not attach copies of any grievances or appeals or describe the
outcome of any administrative proceeding. Thus, his complaint was subject to
dismissal without prejudice. See
Knuckles El v. Toombs, 215 F.3d 640, 642 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 531
U.S. 1040, 148 L. Ed. 2d 542, 121 S. Ct. 634 (2000).
Next, we conclude that the
district court properly held that McCallum's complaint was frivolous as to the
named defendants. See Neitzke v.
Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325, 104 L. Ed. 2d 338, 109 S. Ct. 1827 (1989).
McCallum alleged that while he was incarcerated in the Shelby County Jail, the
medical staff failed to provide him the care he needed to treat his hepatitis
C. His treatment plan called for him to take one kind of medicine by pill five
times a day, to receive another kind by injection three days a week, and to
have his liver function tested. McCallum did not allege, however, that Sheriff
Gilless, Mayor Rout, or Chief Jailer Hopkins were directly involved in his
medical care or condoned, encouraged, or knowingly acquiesced in the alleged
misconduct. Thus, he has no § 1983 claim against them either directly or
through respondeat superior. See
Taylor v. Michigan Dep't of Corr., 69 F.3d 76, 80-81 (6th Cir. 1995);
Walton v. City of Southfield, 995 F.2d 1331, 1340 (6th Cir. 1993). As for
Salky, McCallum named him as a defendant and identified him as an attorney but
did not explain his connection to the case. If Salky was McCallum's attorney,
he was not a state actor subject to liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 318,
70 L. Ed. 2d 509, 102 S. Ct. 445 (1981). If Salky was associated with the
Shelby County Jail, he had no liability because McCallum did not allege that he
was involved in McCallum's medical care. See
Taylor, 69 F.3d at 80-81.
Finally, we conclude that the district court improperly dismissed McCallum's complaint against the Shelby County Jail medical staff and jailers. McCallum had a constitutional right to medical care either as a pretrial detainee or as a convicted prisoner. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 840-42, 128 L. Ed. 2d 811, 114 S. Ct. 1970 (1994); Horn v. Madison County Fiscal Court, 22 F.3d 653, 660 (6th Cir. 1994). Thus, McCallum's allegations against the jail medical staff and jailers have at least an arguable basis in law and are not frivolous. See Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 325. Moreover, McCallum's failure to identify these defendants by name did not make his complaint frivolous. [*216] District courts have a responsibility to construe pro se complaints liberally and to allow ample opportunity for amending the complaint when it appears that the pro se litigant would be able to state a meritorious claim. See Donald v. Cook County Sheriff's Dep't, 95 F.3d 548, 555 (7th Cir. 1996); Berndt v. State of Tenn., 796 F.2d 879, 881 (6th Cir. 1986). Because McCallum may be able to state a claim against the medical staff and jailers, the district court should have relied on his failure to exhaust administrative remedies and dismissed the case without prejudice.
For
the foregoing reasons, we affirm the district court's order in part and vacate
and remand it in part. The case is remanded for dismissal without prejudice
with respect to the Shelby County Jail medical staff and jailers. Rule
34(j)(2)(C), Rules of the Sixth Circuit.