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.

Young v. Wexford Medical

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

February 7, 2019

JONATHAN PSI YOUNG, Plaintiff,
v.
WEXFORD MEDICAL, M. LINKS Dr., M.H.D., Psychiatrist of Wexford Medical at Plainfield Correctional Facility, THAYER Dr., M.H.D., Psychiatrist of Wexford Medical at Plainfield Correctional Facility, STANLEY KNIGHT Warden at Plainfield Correctional Facility, PLAINFIELD CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, STATE OF INDIANA, ROBERT CARTER, Defendants.

          ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS, SCREENING AND DISMISSING COMPLAINT, AND DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE

          TANYA WALTON PRATT, JUDGE

         I. Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis

         Plaintiff Jonathan Psi Young's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, dkt. [2], is granted. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1)(A), an initial partial filing fee of twenty-one dollars and nine-seven cents ($21.97) is assessed and shall be paid to the clerk of the district court no later than March 12, 2019.

         Although Mr. Young is excused from pre-paying the full filing fee, he still must pay the three hundred and fifty dollar ($350.00) filing fee pursuant to the statutory formula set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2) when able. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1) (“the prisoner shall be required to pay the full amount of a filing fee.”).

         II. Plaintiff's Complaint

         A. Screening Legal Standard

         Jonathan Psi Young is a prisoner currently incarcerated at Indiana's Plainfield Correctional Facility. Because Mr. Young is a prisoner as that term is defined by 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(c), this Court has an obligation under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) to screen the complaint before service on defendants. Pursuant to Section 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 Mr. Young 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. Mr. Young's Assertions

         Mr. Young asserts Eighth Amendment claims for “deliberate indifference to medical needs, unsafe conditions, and discrimination.” Dkt. 1, p. 2. His assertions are:

I placed a heathcare request . . . stating a notice of appointment to Dr. Thayer to provide services as a co-trustee for the purposes of executing a statement of competency to determine me to be of sound mind and body to authenticate my ability to execute legal documents related to Will and Trusts and capacity at suit. Dr. M. Links trespassed and broke confidentiality by opening a private letter addressed to Dr. Thayer. Further, Dr. M. Links took it upon himself to schedule an interview to attempt to gain implied consent to abuse his discretion by intentionally slandering me stating that I made statements that were bizarre and non-sensical and that I needed to be placed . . . on psychiatric evaluation. . . . Dr. M. Links fraudulently coerced an on the spot evaluation in an attempt to acquiesce a commitment to psychological hospitalization to which I immediately denied consent and was then returned by threats over and beyond Dr. M. Links ability to perform solely, stating that he would forcibly detain me and drastically depreciate the status of my accustomed [sic] of living to which I became in fear for my life. I have since filed notice of default of previous appointment and accompanied a notice of rescission of any agreement Dr. M. Links assumes he may have acquired by his threats of duress and coercion. . . . Dr. M. Links has placed me under psychological observation . . . based on a pure prejudice in retaliation of a notice to determine competency and not of any sound judgment. . . .
I have reason to suspect that [defendants] are involved in a conspiracy to render me incompetent to cover up a claim of fraudulent joinder that ...

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.