United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Terre Haute Division
DANNY R. RICHARDS, Plaintiff,
CHAVEZ, et al. Defendants.
ENTRY SCREENING SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT AND
DIRECTING SERVICE OF PROCESS
William T. Lawrence, Judge
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.
Second Amended Complaint
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
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).
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).
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.
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.
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
the plaintiff suffers from pain in and around his rectum and
anus and the right side of his ...