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.

Fox v. R. Carter

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

June 13, 2018

RICHARD A. FOX, Plaintiff,
v.
R. CARTER, R. BROWN, F. LITTLEJOHN, K. GILMORE, T. LITTLEJOHN, P. AXE, J. WEST-DENNING, K. HOBSON, R. ROBINSON, M. LEOHR, J. HENDRIX, M. ORBURN, C. MCDANIEL, G. SULLIVAN, Defendants.

          ENTRY SCREENING COMPLAINT AND DIRECTING FURTHER PROCEEDINGS

          Hon. William T. Lawrence, Judge

         Plaintiff Richard Fox, an inmate at the Wabash Valley Correctional Facility (Wabash Valley), brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 alleging that his civil rights have been violated.

         I. Screening Standard

         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).

         II. Discussion

         A. Allegations of the Complaint

         Fox alleges that he suffers from a degenerative back condition known as spondylolysis which causes him severe pain. He states that defendants Hobson and Robinson have falsified his medical records and denied him adequate medical care for this condition. He further asserts that Robinson falsified information in response to grievances he filed related to his care. In addition, defendant Dr. West-Denning has also denied him adequate treatment for his pain and has prescribed him medication to which he is allergic. According to Fox, Dr. West-Denning has provided inadequate medical care in retaliation and discrimination against him.

         Fox also alleges that defendants Robert Carter, R. Brown, K. Gilmore, F. Littlejohn, T. Littlejohn, P. Axe, M. Leohr, J. Hendrix, and M. Osburn are liable based on their supervisory roles. He claims these defendants are all supervisory officials who failed to remedy these wrongs after being made aware of them through reports, complaints, and letters.

         He also alleges that Brown, Gilmore, Hobson, F. Littlejohn, and T. Littlejohn failed to provide adequate grievance procedures and failed to ensure that medical personnel fulfilled the standard of care.

         Fox goes on to allege that defendants M. Leohr, Jack Hendrix, Richard Brown, Robert Carter, and Michael Osburn have failed to provide him with a requested facility transfer and this has resulted in the denial of his visitation rights.

         Finally, Fox alleges that defendants Officer McDaniel and Sergeant Sullivan falsified a conduct report against him which resulted in his placement in segregation and the loss of his property.

         B. Screening ...


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.