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.

Mackey v. Corizon Health LLC

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

November 20, 2018

CLINTON B. MACKEY, Plaintiff,
v.
CORIZON HEALTH LLC, WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, INC., SAMUEL J. BYRD, MARY A. CHAVEZ, BARBRA RIGGS, PAUL A. TALBOT, M.D., Defendants.

          ENTRY DENYING AS UNNECESSARY MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME, GRANTING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT, SCREENING AMENDED COMPLAINT, AND DIRECTING FURTHER PROCEEDINGS

          TANYA WALTON PRATT, JUDGE

         This action is before the Court for resolution of Plaintiff Clinton Mackey's motion for an extension of time to file an amended complaint, Dkt. 31, and his motion for leave to file an amended complaint, Dkt. 32. In this Entry, the Court also screens Mr. Mackey's amended complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).

         I. Motion for Extension of Time

          Mr. Mackey's motion for an extension of time to file an amended complaint, Dkt. [31], is denied as unnecessary. Mr. Mackey moved for leave to file an amended complaint within the time provided by the current pretrial schedule. See Dkts. 29, 32.

         II. Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint

          Mr. Mackey's unopposed motion for leave to file an amended complaint, Dkt. [32], is granted. The clerk is directed to redocket the proposed amended complaint, Dkt. 32-1, as the amended complaint. This action shall proceed with the amended complaint as the operative pleading in the action.

         III. Screening

         Mr. Mackey is an inmate currently confined at the Pendleton Correctional Facility (PCF). Because Mr. Mackey 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 the amended complaint before service on the defendants.

         A. Screening Standard

         Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b), the Court must dismiss a 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 a 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.” Perez v. Fenoglio, 792 F.3d 768, 776 (7th Cir. 2015) (internal quotation omitted).

         B. The Amended Complaint

         The original complaint asserted claims regarding Mr. Mackey's treatment for urological symptoms while confined at the Wabash Valley Correctional Facility (WVCF) and PCF between August 2015 and February 2018. A thorough discussion of the claims and allegations presented in the ...


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.