Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Giles v. Bailey

United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Terre Haute Division

October 14, 2016

DAMON GILES, Plaintiff,
v.
BAILEY DR., WILSON DR., GOSSETT MS., GENEVIEVE DAUGHTERY, JULIAN WARDEN, LEANN LARIVA WARDEN, Defendants.

          ENTRY SCREENING AMENDED COMPLAINT, DISMISSING INSUFFICIENT CLAIMS, AND DIRECTING SERVICE OF PROCESS

          HON. WILLIAM T. LAWRENCE, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

         I. Screening

         A. Background

         The plaintiff has paid the initial partial filing fee. A collection order will also issue to collect the balance of the filing fee. The Court will now screen the amended complaint filed on October 11, 2016, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).

         The plaintiff, Damon Giles (“Mr. Giles”), is a federal inmate confined at the Federal Correctional Institution in Terre Haute, Indiana. He names the following defendants: 1) Dr. Bailey; 2) Dr. Wilson; 3) Ms. Gossett; 4) Warden Julian; 5) Warden Lariva; 6) Genevieve Daugherty; 7) Dr. Southwick; and 8) Dr. Kajimad George. This is a civil rights complaint brought pursuant to the theory recognized in Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). Mr. Giles seeks compensatory and punitive damages and injunctive relief.

         B. Allegations

         Mr. Giles alleges that on or about April 27, 2015, he notified Dr. Bailey of an infected area on his leg. He alleges that for two months Dr. Bailey and Ms. Gossett failed to provide treatment and the infection spread to his whole right leg, leaving two holes in his leg. He alleges he was denied medication and treatment and then later medication was stopped, causing six blood clots. Mr. Giles alleges that Dr. Southwick was aware of his medical problems but allowed him to have infected fluids sit on the infected area for weeks. He also alleges that Dr. Kajimad George put a device in him which has been recalled and could cause death. He alleges violations of his Fourteenth and Eighth Amendment rights.

         Mr. Giles also alleges that Warden Julian, Warden Lariva, and Dr. Wilson have “indirect participation” and are liable for their subordinates' actions.

         Mr. Giles asserts state law claims of negligence, malpractice, professional misconduct, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, abuse of process, and failure to protect from malicious process.

         C. Insufficient Claims

         Some of Mr. Giles' claims are legally insufficient, while others will be allowed to proceed, as discussed below:

The claims against Warden Julian, Warden Lariva, and Dr. Wilson are based on their role as supervisors of employees' whose conduct allegedly violated Mr. Giles' constitutional rights. Mr. Giles has alleged no facts under which the supervisors could be found liable for the actions of their employees. “[A] defendant cannot be liable under Bivens on the basis of respondeat superior or supervisory liability, rather, there must be individual participation and involvement by the defendant.” Arnett v. Webster, 658 F.3d 742, 757 (7th Cir. 2011).

         Although Genevieve Daugherty is listed as a defendant, there are no factual allegations of wrongdoing against her. Accordingly, any claim against Genevieve Daugherty is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

         Mr. Giles alleges that his Fourteenth Amendment rights have been violated, but no facts support such a claim. Constitutional claims are to be addressed under the most applicable provision. See Conyers v. Abitz,416 F.3d 580, 586 (7th Cir. 2005). Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 31 (1993) (“It is undisputed that the treatment a prisoner receives in prison and ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.