United States District Court, W.D. Kentucky, at Louisville Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
CHARLES R. SIMPSON, III, Senior District Judge.
Plaintiff Jimmie Lee Dennison filed the instant pro se 28 U.S.C. § 1983 action proceeding in forma pauperis . This matter is before the Court on the initial review of the action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
By separate Memorandum and Order entered this date, the Court ordered that Plaintiff's claims against the Marion County Sheriff's Office, located in Alabama, be severed from this action and transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. Therefore, those claims will proceed in that court and will not be addressed here.
Furthermore, subsequent to the complaint, Plaintiff filed a document (DN 5), in which he states that, in reference to the claims against Judge Easton and the Hardin County Justice Center, he wanted to add "charges" of "Judicial Misconduct, Illegal Incarceration, Gross Negligence, Cruel and Unusual Punishment...." Because the filing adds new claims not made in the complaint, the Court CONSTRUES the motion as a motion to amend the complaint and GRANTS the motion (DN 5). See Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(1). The Court will conduct initial screening of the amended complaint, as well.
Upon initial review of the complaint and amendment, for the reasons set forth herein, the Court will dismiss some of the claims and allow Plaintiff to amend his complaint with regard to his claim concerning denial of medical treatment.
I. SUMMARY OF ALLEGATIONS
Plaintiff is a convicted inmate at the Hardin County Detention Center (HCDC). He sues HCDC, Judge Easton, and the Hardin County Justice Center. The complaint states that Defendants are sued in their official capacities only.
Plaintiff states that he was "ruled completely disable, diagnosed with Type 1 Bi-Polar, Paranoid Schitzophrenic, P.T.S.D., and Agoraphobia." He reports that he also has advanced arthritis and bursitis in his bones and joints. He was prescribed "Depakote, Respridal, Serqquil, Lortabe, Tramadol, Backlorate, and iburophen...." He states that he started drawing Supplement Security Income (SSI) in 2008.
Plaintiff states that he "was arrested by Ky and ordered to pay back child support arrearages and put on 5 yrs probation" and that his "probation was up August 18th, 2012." He maintains that a warrant was issued for his arrest and that he was arrested in his home in Winfield, Alabama, on December 3, 2013, for "not paying enough out of my SSI on the arrearages."
According to the complaint, after initially being housed in Alabama, he was transported to HCDC. He states that he reported his medical conditions, including injuries from an accident he had while incarcerated in Alabama. He states, "They ignored it, and denied me any and all my medications. They even misdiagnosed my Depakote, Respindal, and Seraquil as for numbness in my legs, and denied them again!" He reports that after his parole was revoked and he was sentenced to 10 years, he was required to go to work in the HCDC kitchen and "due to lack of my medication and the numbness in my legs, had a terrible fall on the greasy floor of the kitchen." He further states, "It was x-rayed and they said no bones were broke so it was a torn rotary cup and tendon...." He states that he "was refused all medical help for that, or even an arm sling." He contends that it has caused him a lifetime of pain. He also alleges "Extreem Prejudice due to my race as a Native American." He states that he has "not been allowed ANY of my pain medication." He also maintains that he suffers excruciating pain day and night. Plaintiff also states that he has been denied "ALL my medication even medical attention or help" for injuries he sustained while incarcerated.
With regard to his conviction, Plaintiff reports that, in August 2008, he "was charged with Flagrant non Support because I am disabled and hadnt been paying Ky back enough." He states that he went to live with his sister in Mississippi and asked his public defender if he could attend court by phone. Plaintiff states, "They never responded back and I was charged with Bail Jumping." He reports that Judge Easton revoked his probation and sentenced him to 10 years. He states that a public defender told him that he was being illegally imprisoned and that there was another case decided which "reaffirmed a judge can only order someone to pay something based on their ability to pay. Since Im disabled, I didn't have the ability to pay! Also, arrearages is a DEBT, we don't have debtors prison anymore!" (Emphasis by Plaintiff.) He states that his family has "lost our home, everything we owned but some clothes TWICE because of this court's illegal actions."
As relief, Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages and "release from illegal detention, records expunged, restore civil rights."
When a prisoner initiates a civil action seeking redress from a governmental entity, officer, or employee, the trial court must review the complaint and dismiss the complaint, or any portion of it, if the court determines that the complaint is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See §§ 1915A(b)(1), (2); McGore v. Wrigglesworth , 114 F.3d 601, 604 (6th Cir. 1997), overruled on other grounds by Jones v. Bock , 549 U.S. 199 (2007). When determining whether a plaintiff has stated a claim upon which relief can be granted, the court must construe the complaint in a light most favorable to the plaintiff and accept all of the factual allegations as true. Prater v. City of Burnside, Ky. , 289 F.3d 417, 424 (6th Cir. 2002). In order to survive dismissal for failure to state a claim, "a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'" Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). "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." Id. (citing Twombly , 550 U.S. at 556). "[A] district court must (1) view the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and (2) take all well-pleaded ...