United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division
CLINTON B. MACKEY, Plaintiff,
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
WALTON PRATT, JUDGE
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.
Motion for leave to file Amended Complaint
Mackey's unopposed motion for leave to file an amended
complaint, dkt. , 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.
Screening of Second Amended Complaint
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.
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
[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).
The Second Amended Complaint
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.
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.
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 ...