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.

Adams v. Corizon Healthcare

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

May 17, 2017

TERRY T. ADAMS, SR., Plaintiff,
v.
CORIZON HEALTHCARE, WEXFORD HEALTH, SAMUEL BRYD Dr., MARTIN Dr., REED R.N., LUNDY Lt., IDOC Custody Staff, Defendants.

          ENTRY DENYING IN FORMA PAUPERIS STATUS, SCREENING AND DISMISSING CERTAIN DEFENDANTS AND CLAIMS, AND DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE

          Hon. William T. Lawrence, Judge

         Plaintiff Terry T. Adams, Sr., initiated this action on May 15, 2017, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court makes the following rulings.

         I. In Forma Pauperis Status

         Plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, dkt. [2], is denied as presented. He shall have until June 19, 2017, in which renew his motion to proceed in forma pauperis by attaching a copy of the transactions associated with his institution trust account for the six-month period preceding the filing of this action on May 15, 2017. 42 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2). Otherwise, plaintiff must pay the $400.00 filing fee.

         II. Screening of the Complaint

         A. Legal Standard

         Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b), the Court must dismiss a complaint or any claim within a complaint that “(1) is 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.” Id. To satisfy the notice-pleading standard of Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a complaint must provide a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, ” which is sufficient to provide the defendant with “fair notice” of the claim and its basis. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (per curiam) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) and quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2)). The purpose of this requirement is “to give the defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)); see also Wade v. Hopper, 993 F.2d 1246, 1249 (7th Cir. 1993) (noting that the main purpose of Rule 8 is rooted in fair notice: a complaint “must be presented with intelligibility sufficient for a court or opposing party to understand whether a valid claim is alleged and if so what it is.”) (internal quotation omitted)). The complaint “‘must actually suggest that the plaintiff has a right to relief, by providing allegations that raise a right to relief above the speculative level.'” Windy City Metal Fabricators & Supply, Inc. v. CIT Tech. Fin. Servs., 536 F.3d 663, 668 (7th Cir. 2008) (quoting Tamayo v. Blagojevich, 526 F.3d 1074, 1084 (7th Cir. 2008)).

         Pro se complaints 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). Liberal construction means that if the Court can reasonably read the pleadings to state a valid claim on which the party could prevail, it should do so.

         B. Analysis

         Plaintiff contends he injured his bicep on August 21, 2015, and that he has seen but not been adequately treated by Nurse Reed, Dr. Martin, and Dr. Samuel Byrd. He contends that despite a severe injury and a surgery recommendation, he has not been scheduled for surgery, his pain has not been adequately treated, and that these health providers have been deliberately indifferent to his “serious medical situation.” He further contends that Lt. Lundy declined to assist him with paperwork to obtain medical care, that Lt. Lundy could have demanded health care for him, and that Lt. Lundy “had no desire to fill our additional forms for anyone.”

         The complaint, liberally construed, states an Eighth Amendment claim as to Nurse Reed, Dr. Martin, Dr. Samuel Byrd, and Lt. Lundy, and shall proceed as directed below. There are no specific allegations made against Corizon Healthcare, Wexford Health, or I.D.O.C. Custody Staff. Section 1983 liability cannot be premised on vicarious liability. Rodriguez v. Plymouth Ambulance Serv., 577 F.3d 816 (7th Cir. 2009). The claims against Corizon Healthcare, Wexford Health, and I.D.O.C. Custody Staff are dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1).[1]

         Plaintiff's First Amendment claim is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Nothing in plaintiff's complaint invokes any First Amendment issue, and the specific allegations he makes concern deliberate indifference to his medical needs, which are covered by plaintiff's Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim. Constitutional claims are to be addressed under the most applicable provision. See Conyers v. Abitz, 416 F.3d 580, 586 (7th Cir. 2005).

         If plaintiff believes that additional claims or defendants were alleged in the complaint, but not identified by the Court, he shall have through June 19, 2017, in which to identify those claims.

         III. Summary 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.