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

February 6, 2019

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

          ENTRY GRANTING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT, SCREENING SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT, DIRECTING ISSUANCE OF PROCESS, AND DIRECTING FURTHER PROCEEDINGS

          TANYA WALTON PRATT, JUDGE

         This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Clinton Mackey's motion for leave to file an amended complaint. In this Entry, the Court addresses that motion; screens the Second Amended Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b); directs issuance of process to the newly added defendant, Dr. Michael Mitcheff; and directs further proceedings for the advancement of this case.

         I. Motion for leave to file Amended Complaint

          Mr. Mackey's unopposed motion for leave to file an amended complaint, dkt. [49], is granted. The clerk is directed to redocket the proposed amended pleading, dkt. 49-1, as the Second Amended Complaint which in now the operative pleading in the action.

         II. Screening of Second Amended Complaint

          Mr. Mackey is an inmate currently confined at the Pendleton Correctional Facility (“Pendleton”). Because Mr. Mackey is a “prisoner” as defined by 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(c), this Court has an obligation under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) to screen the Second Amended Complaint before service on the defendants.

         A. Screening Standard

         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 Cesal v. Moats, 851 F.3d 714, 720 (7th Cir. 2017). 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 Second Amended Complaint

         The Second Amended Complaint asserts claims regarding Mr. Mackey's treatment for urological symptoms while confined at the Wabash Valley Correctional Facility and Pendleton between August 2015 and December 2018. In this Entry, the Court will not discuss the claims Mr. Mackey presented in his original complaint and the first amended complaint, as they have not changed. A thorough discussion of those claims and the factual allegations supporting them may be found in the Court's previous screening Entries, Dkts. 10, and 38.

         The Second Amended Complaint differs in two ways. First, it changes the names of Defendants Corizon Health, LLC, and Wexford Health Sources, Inc., to Corizon, LLC, and Wexford of Indiana, LLC, respectively. Second, it adds Dr. Michael Mitcheff as a defendant.

         The Second Amended Complaint identifies Dr. Mitcheff as Wexford's regional medical director. It alleges that, when prison doctors employed by Wexford wished to refer patients for treatment by doctors outside the prison, they submitted their referrals to Dr. Mitcheff, and he either approved or denied them. Mr. Mackey alleges that, in 2017 and 2018, Dr. Mitcheff wrongly denied ...


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.