United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division
ENTRY SCREENING COMPLAINT AND DIRECTING FURTHER
William T. Lawrence, Judge
plaintiff, Jeremiah Schwanke (“Mr. Schwanke”), is
a prisoner currently incarcerated at New Castle Correctional
Facility (“New Castle”). Because the plaintiff is
a “prisoner” as defined by 28 U.S.C. §
1915(h), this Court has an obligation under 28 U.S.C. §
1915A(b) to screen his complaint before service on the
defendants. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b), the Court
must dismiss the complaint if it is frivolous or malicious,
fails to state a claim for relief, or seeks monetary relief
against a defendant who is immune from such relief. In
determining whether the complaint states a claim, the Court
applies the same standard as when addressing a motion to
dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
See Lagerstrom v. Kingston, 463 F.3d 621, 624 (7th
Cir. 2006). To survive dismissal,
[the] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter,
accepted as true, to state a claim for relief that is
plausible on its face. A claim has facial plausibility when
the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to
draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable
for the misconduct alleged.
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Pro se
complaints such as that filed by the plaintiff are construed
liberally and held to a less stringent standard than formal
pleadings drafted by lawyers. Obriecht v. Raemisch,
517 F.3d 489, 491 n.2 (7th Cir. 2008).
Schwanke names the following defendants: 1) Corizon Health,
Inc.; 2) Dr. Ippel; 3) Dr. Loveridge; 4) Hannah Winningham;
5) N. P. Glover; 6) and Michael Mitcheff. He seeks
compensatory, punitive, and nominal damages, and a permanent
injunction requiring defendants to provide him with all
prescribed necessary medical treatment.
Schwanke alleges that he accidentally spilled extremely hot
chili on his right arm on or about March 24, 2015, causing
severe third degree burns, scars, nerve damage, and
diminished range of motion in that arm.
alleges that a few days after the injury, he saw Dr.
Loveridge who prescribed pain medications and antibiotics and
ordered regular bandaging. Months later, Dr. Loveridge
ordered ten sessions of physical therapy, but Mr. Schwanke
only received four or five of the sessions. Dr. Loveridge
explained that the reason Mr. Schwanke did not receive all
ten sessions was because the prison did not have a therapist.
Dr. Loveridge also ordered plastic surgery for Mr.
Schwanke's arm to remove the extensive scar tissue,
restore some range of motion, and eliminate the chronic nerve
pain. Mr. Schwanke has not yet had the surgery.
allegations against Dr. Loveridge do not state a claim of
deliberate indifference to a serious medical need. Rather,
the allegations reflect that Dr. Loveridge was responsive to
Mr. Schwanke's arm injury and prescribed pain medication,
antibiotics, physical therapy, and surgery. Accordingly, the
claim against Dr. Loveridge is dismissed for failure to state
a claim upon which relief can be granted. No partial final
judgment shall issue at this time regarding the dismissal of
Schwanke alleges that although Dr. Loveridge ordered plastic
surgery a few months after the injury, defendants Michael
Mitcheff, Glover, Winningham, and Dr. Ippel have knowingly
failed to resubmit the request or grant the request to ensure
that Mr. Schwanke have the surgery.
Schwanke alleges that Corizon Health, Inc., failed to provide
sufficient staff to provide him with the prescribed physical
therapy sessions. He further alleges that Corizon Health,
Inc. is aware that its employees have refused to provide
treatment for pain but that because of its for-profit model,
it has failed to ensure that he receive adequate and
effective treatment for his extreme nerve pain.
Schwanke alleges that he has informed Dr. Ippel of his
chronic, severe nerve pain in his right arm but that the
physician refuses to prescribe nerve pain medication.
the foregoing, the claims of deliberate indifference to Mr.
Schwanke's serious medical needs brought against
defendants Corizon Health, Inc., Dr. Ippel, Hannah Winngham,