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.

Richards v. Chavez

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

June 13, 2018

DANNY R. RICHARDS, Plaintiff,
v.
CHAVEZ, et al. Defendants.

          ENTRY SCREENING SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT AND DIRECTING SERVICE OF PROCESS

          Hon. William T. Lawrence, Judge

         I. Filing Fee

         On June 6, 2018, the Court directed the plaintiff to pay the initial partial filing fee of Five Dollars and Forty-Three Cents. The plaintiff is notified that the Court received the initial partial filing fee on June 5, 2018.

         II. Second Amended Complaint

         On June 4, 2018, the plaintiff filed a response to the Court's May 29, 2018, Entry directing further proceedings. In the plaintiff's response he asks that the Court reconsider its previous Entry dismissing the claims against Wexford and Corizon. He also directed the Court that he intends for the second amended complaint filed on May 16, 2018, to replace and supersede the amended complaint filed on May 14, 2018. The Court will now screen the second amended complaint filed on May 16, 2018. As such, the Court will not reconsider its previous screening entries that dismissed Wexford and Corizon as defendants.

         III. Screening

         The plaintiff is a prisoner currently incarcerated at Wabash Valley Correctional Facility (“Wabash Valley”). 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 second amended 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).

         The plaintiff's claims are brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against defendants Corizon Health (Corizon), Dr. Chavez, Dr. Denning, and Wexford Health Sources (Wexford).

         The second amended complaint alleges that defendant Dr. Chavez ignored and failed to document the plaintiff's complaints of severe headaches, episodes of fainting, loss of appetite, trouble sleeping, and his need for assistance walking and getting around. The plaintiff alleges that defendant Corizon has a policy of trying to save money and that the well-being of the inmates is not a goal. Dr. Chavez allegedly failed to perform any medical tests on the plaintiff.

         Subsequently, Dr. Byrd treated the plaintiff and recommended that he be seen by a blood specialist. In January 2018, the plaintiff was treated by defendant Dr. Denning, who was employed by Wexford. The plaintiff explained all of his symptoms to Dr. Denning, including the pain he suffers as a result of ulcerative colitis. Dr. Denning determined that the plaintiff did not need to be seen by a specialist because prison medical staff diagnosed him with Type 2 diabetes, based on his blood work.

         The plaintiff insisted he be seen by a specialist because he felt his long term use of steroids caused an abnormal result in his blood similar to those found in people with Type 2 diabetes.

         Additionally, the plaintiff suffers from pain in and around his rectum and anus and the right side of his ...


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.