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.

Rowe v. Dillow

United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division

October 24, 2017

REV. JEFFREY ALLEN ROWE, Plaintiff,
v.
AMBER DILLOW LPN., ALICIA D. COOMER LPN., BRUCE D. IPPLE MD., CORRECTIONAL CAPTAIN GARD, GEO GROUP, INC., JEFFERY GLOVER NP., JESSICA WIGAL LPN., HUFFARD Mr., HSA., SGT. BROWN NURSE, BURKHARDT NURSE, CORRECTIONAL CAPTAIN THOMPSON, Defendants.

          ENTRY SCREENING COMPLAINT AND DIRECTING FURTHER PROCEEDINGS

          TANYA WALTON PRATT, JUDGE.

         I. Screening Standard

         Plaintiff Jeffrey Allen Rowe is a prisoner currently incarcerated at the New Castle Correctional Facility (“NCCF”). 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 Rowe 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).

         II. The Complaint

         The following facts are those that Rowe alleges in his complaint: Rowe has a small cyst on his testicle which causes him severe pain and prevents him from doing many daily activities. He has been denied treatment for this in a number of ways. Defendant Nurse Wigal has delayed in scheduling him for Nurse Sick Call and failed to provide him with adequate pain medication. Nurse Dillow delayed in scheduling him to see the provider. Nurse Practitioner Glover delayed in examining him and when he did examine him, he ordered an ultrasound, but did not provide him with enough medication for his pain. Rowe continued to submit healthcare requests complaining of pain and Nurse Practitioner Glover again delayed in seeing him and failed to provide him with adequate pain medication.

         Defendant Huffard is the Health Services Administrator. Rowe submitted multiple communications to Huffard, but Huffard failed to ensure that Rowe received timely and adequate treatment.

         Rowe complained of his pain to defendant Dr. Ipple and Dr. Ipple refused to help him.

         When Rowe was prescribed pain medication, defendant Burkhardt failed to record properly the amount of medication he should receive. Nurse Coomer delayed his requests for pain medication.

         He complained about his pain to defendant Nurse Brown and she referred him to the provider instead of calling the doctors at that time to seek prescription pain medication.

         Under its contract with the Indiana Department of Correction, The Geo Group, Inc. (“GEO”) has a duty to provide sufficient staff to properly and efficiently operate the security operations at NCCF. As a prisoner at NCCF, Rowe is a third-party beneficiary of this contract. NCCF is understaffed and movement on Rowe's Unit has been delayed. These delays have contributed to the delays in the medical care at issue in Rowe's complaint. Correctional Captains Gard and Thompson were aware of these delays and failed to ensure timely movement within the Unit.

         III. Discussion of Claims

         Applying the screening standard to the factual allegations in the complaint, the claims ...


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.