United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division
DEWAYNE C. ROMANS, SR., Plaintiff,
KEITH BUTTS, BRUCE IPPEL, STACY SCOTT, LERRETA DAWSON sued in his or hers - Individual & Official capacities, Defendants.
ENTRY SCREENING AMENDED COMPLAINT, DISMISSING
INSUFFICIENT CLAIMS, AND DIRECTING SERVICE OF
WALTON PRATT, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Screening of the Amended Complaint
Dewayne C. Romans, Sr. is incarcerated at the New Castle
Correctional Facility (New Castle). Because the plaintiff is
a “prisoner” as defined by 28 U.S.C. §
1915A(c), the 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 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 pleadings drafted by lawyers.”
Cesal, 851 F.3d at 720.
amended complaint tendered on March 25, 2019, names the
following defendants: 1) Warden Keith Butts; 2) Dr. Bruce
Ippel; 3) Stacy Scott, Health Service Administrator; 4)
Lerreta Dawson, Nurse Practitioner; and 5) Mike Smith,
Quality Assurance Manager. All defendants are named in their
individual and official capacities. Mr. Romans seeks
compensatory and punitive damages and injunctive relief.
Romans alleges that the defendants all knowingly delayed and
deprived him of necessary medical treatment. He recites a
lengthy chronology of his medical conditions and treatment
during the period of June 2016 through November 2018. Prior
to being incarcerated, he was receiving Social Security
Disability payments due to a gunshot wound to his left leg.
He had also been prescribed an “Arizona brace on
spine.” In June 2016, when at New Castle, he started
requesting the Arizona brace. On or about February 2, 2017,
he reinjured his left leg on his bunk, allegedly because he
had not been given the brace. His left leg was swollen and
very painful. Mr. Romans requested to be seen by an
orthopedic doctor. He also requested pain medication and an
ultrasound to check for newly formed blood clots. He
submitted health care requests asking to see a doctor and
complaining about the pain and swelling. He was seen by a
nurse practitioner (NP) on February 27, 2017. The NP
submitted a request for Mr. Romans to be seen by a physician.
On March 13, 2017, he was seen again by the NP. Mr. Romans
was given a bottom bunk and bottom range pass with a six week
lay-in to try to limit his movement.
March 14, 2017, Mr. Romans was transported to an outside
orthopedic clinic. He was prescribed the Arizona brace for
his spine and x-rays were taken. On March 15, 2017, he had a
disagreement with prison medical staff about whether he
should have a wheelchair and be allowed to continue to attend
vocational classes. On March 20, 2017, he submitted a
grievance to the Warden about being taken out of vocational
classes due to his injury. He was informed that if he missed
classes he would not be able to make them up and he would
have to request another referral for vocational classes. On
March 21, 2017, Mr. Romans was referred for a wheelchair
evaluation, but the appropriate size wheelchair was not
April 10, 2017, Mr. Romans was provided an extra large ankle
brace, but it was not the correct brace. He requested a
larger brace. He continued to submit numerous medical care
requests for renewal of medications, an ultrasound of his
veins, and other tests, in addition to the proper brace.
2017, Dr. Ippel told Mr. Romans he would order the proper
Arizona brace and order a sonogram of damage to his veins.
These requests were noted in the chart but were not ordered.
Care Services Administrator Scott met with Mr. Romans in
August 2017 and assured him that the prescribed Arizona brace
would be provided. He alleges that she never provided the
Romans alleges that beginning in January 2018, Dr. Ippel
decided not to renew his prescription for Neurontin. This was
done because the medication was highly trafficked in prison
and inmates were being bullied into giving other inmates the
medication. Dr. Ippel prescribed several different
medications to ...