Walking Bull v. City of Rapid City et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA
WESTERN DIVISION
FILED
MAY 1 7 2022
CL5RK
JAMI WALKING BULL, 5:22-CV-5029-CBK
Plaintiff,
vs.
CITY OF RAPID CITY, S.D., COUNTY OF
PENNINGTON SHERIFF THOM,
COUNTY OF PENNINGTON JAIL
COMMANDER YANTIS, COUNTY OF
PENNINGTON JAIL CAPTAIN MUNSCH,
COUNTY OF PENNINGTON JAIL LT.
HOUSTON,and COUNTY OF
PENNINGTON JAIL MEDICAL STAFF,
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Defendants.
I. BACKGROUND
Jatni Walking Bull ("plaintiff) is currently a pretrial detainee at Pennington
County Jail in Rapid City, South Dakota. He has filed suit against the City ofRapid City,
Pennington County Sheriff Kevin Thorn, Pennington Jail Commander Rob Yantis,
Pennington Jail Captain Casey Musnch,Pennington County Jail Lieutenant "Houston,"
and Pennington County Jail Medical Staff, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Doc. 1.
Plaintiff argues that the named defendants, all in their official capacities, have twice
refused to provide him needed Hepatitis C medication, constituting a deliberate
indifference claim in violation of his Constitutional rights. See id. at 6.
Mr. Walking Bull has moved for leave to proceed informa pauperis, which this
Court granted upon the plaintiffs initial partial filing fee in the amount of$13.47. The
Court received receipt ofthe initial partial filing fee on April 21, 2022, and now may
proceed with its initial review.
Case 5:22-cv-05029-CBK Document 6 Filed 05/17/22 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: <pageID>

II. INITIAL REVIEW STANDARD
The Prison Litigation Reform Act requires the Court to screen prisoner complaints
and dismiss any complaint that is "(1)frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted or(2)seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is
immune from such relief." 28 U.S.C. § 191A(b). I am required to give the plaintiffs pro
se complaint liberal construction and identify any discemable cognizable claim. Rinehart
V. Weitzell. 964 F.3d 684,687-88 (8th Cir. 2020). I have conducted an initial review as
required by § 1915A.
III. ANALYSIS
Mr. Walking Bull instituted this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging
deprivation of constitutional rights while undergoing pretrial detention. Having granted
plaintiffs motion to proceed informa pauperis upon paying his initial filing fee, this
Court may now conduct its initial review.
Walking Bull alleges that Pennington County Jail and the named defendants have
twice denied him needed treatment for his Hepatitis C. Hepatitis C is a serious malady,
where "[mjore than half ofthose infected develop chronic liver inflammation and after
many years of progressive deterioration some develop cirrhosis and end-stage liver
disease, which can be fatal." Bender v. Regier. 383 F.3d 1133, 1134 (8th Cir. 2004).
Shockingly,"[a]bout forty percent of Americans infected with [Hepatitis C Virus] reside
in correctional institutions." Id. at 1134-35 {citing Scott A. Allen et al. Hepatitis C
Among Offenders, 67 FED.PROBATION 22, 24(2003)).
Pretrial detainees' conditions ofconfinement claims in state and local jails arise
out ofthe Fourteenth and Eighth Amendments to the United States Constitution. See
Smith V. Conwav Cntv.. Arkansas. 759 F.3d 853, 858 (8th Cir. 2014)("Although the
Eighth Amendment has no application until there has been a formal adjudication of guilt,
the Fourteenth Amendment gives state pretrial detainees—just as the Fifth Amendment
gives federal pretrial detainees—^rights which are at least as great as the Eighth
Amendment protections available to a convicted prisoner.")(internal quotation marks
omitted). "[PJretrial detainees are entitled to at least as great protection as that afforded
Case 5:22-cv-05029-CBK Document 6 Filed 05/17/22 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: <pageID>

convicted prisoners under the Eighth Amendment." A.H. v. St. Louis Cnty, Missouri,
891 F.3d 721, 726(8th Cir. 2018)(internal quotation marks omitted)(alteration in
original). It bears emphasizing that as a pretrial detainee Walking Bull holds "the right to
be free from punishment." Phillips v. Kiser. 172 Fed.Appx. 128, 129(8th Cir. 2006)(per
curiam){unpublished).
The Constitution requires that prison officials "must ensure that inmates receive
adequate food, clothing, shelter, and medical care, and must take 'reasonable measures to
guarantee the safety of the inmates.'" Farmer v. Brennan. 511 U.S. 825, 832(1994)
(quotins Hudson v. Palmer. 468 U.S. 517, 526-27(1984)). See Rhodes v. Chapman.452
U.S. 337, 349, 347(1981)(noting that although the Constitution "does not mandate
comfortable prisons," pretrial detainees may not be denied "the minimal civilized
measure of life's necessities."). Pretrial detainees are protected from state actors acting
"deliberately indifferent to [their] serious medical needs." De Rossitte v. Correct Care
Sols.. LLC,22 F.4th 796, 802(8th Cir. 2022)(internal citation omitted). The United
States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has discussed the difference between the
Eighth Amendment's protections from cruel and unusual punishment and the Fourteenth
Amendment's protection from punishment prior to adjudication of guilt, consistently
applying the deliberate indifference standard "to pretrial detainee claims that prison
officials unconstitutionally ignored a serious medical need or failed to protect the
detainee from a serious risk of harm." Butler v. Fletcher. 465 F.3d 340, 344(8th Cir.
2006).
"The plaintiff[] must demonstrate(1)that[he] suffered objectively serious medical
needs and (2)that the [jail] officials actually knew of but deliberately disregarded those
needs." Allard v. Baldwin. 779 F.3d 768, 771 (8th Cir. 2015)(intemal quotation marks
omitted). "Negligence is not enough." East v. Minnehaha Cntv.. 986 F.3d 816, 820 (8th
Cir. 2021)(citation omitted). See also Pietrafeso v. Lawrence Cntv.. South Dakota. 452
F.3d 978,983 (8th Cir. 2006)("Deliberate indifference may include intentionally denying
or delaying access to medical care, or intentionally interfering with treatment or
medication that has been prescribed.")(intemal quotation marks omitted).
3
Case 5:22-cv-05029-CBK Document 6 Filed 05/17/22 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: <pageID>

Mr. Walking Bull has sufficiently alleged failure of adequate medieal eare claims
against Pennington County Jail and named defendants to proeeed past initial review.
Aceordingly, the named defendants should be served pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d).
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall provide Jami Walking
Bull a separate summons and USM-285 form for each defendant. Plaintiff shall complete
and return to the Clerk of Court a separate summons and USM-285 form for each
defendant. Upon receipt of the eompleted summons and USM-285 forms, the Clerk of
Court will issue the summonses.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the United States Marshals Service shall serve a
copy of the summons and amended complaint upon the defendants pursuant to SDCL
§ I5-6-4(d)(8). All costs of service shall be advaneed by the United States.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that in the event plaintiff makes a recovery under
the complaint, plaintiff shall reimburse the government for any filing and service fees that
have been advaneed.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED if the plaintiff fails to complete and return summons
and the USM-285 forms as directed, this matter will be dismissed for failure to prosecute.
.is	DATED this 7_C£1__ day of May,2022
BY THE COURT:
CHARLES B. KORNMANN
United States District Judge
Case 5:22-cv-05029-CBK Document 6 Filed 05/17/22 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: <pageID>