Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

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.

Allman v. Correct Care Solutions

United States District Court, W.D. Kentucky, Louisville

January 8, 2015

CORRECT CARE SOLUTIONS, et al., Defendants.


DAVID J. HALE, District Judge.

Plaintiff Teddy Albert Allman filed the instant pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action proceeding in forma pauperis . Subsequent to the complaint, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking to "amend/augment" the complaint (DN 12). IT IS ORDERED that the motion (DN 12) is GRANTED. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(1). This matter is before the Court on the initial review of the complaint and amended complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Upon initial review, for the reasons set forth herein, the Court will dismiss the action.


Plaintiff[1] is a convicted inmate who at the time he filed the complaint was incarcerated at the Roederer Correctional Complex (RCC). The docket shows that Plaintiff filed a notice of change of address to the Northpoint Training Center (NTC) shortly after filing this suit; then was subsequently transferred to the Kentucky State Penitentiary (KSP); and then transferred back to NTC, where he is currently incarcerated.

Plaintiff sues Correct Care Solutions and Correct Care Integrated Health Care, Inc., both of which Plaintiff identifies as the healthcare provider for the Kentucky Department of Corrections (KDOC). Plaintiff states that in 2008, "I was first diagnosed with a mild aortic valve murmur' known as Aortic Valve Regurgitation that has progressively gotten worse and due to my incarceration I have Not been given adequate medical health care and treatment...." He reports that he has filed medical grievances which were denied. He states that the grievances requested as follows:

proper and adequate care by a qualified Cardiologist who can provide me with the needed open heart surgery to repair the Hole' in the center wall of my heart and repair or replace the damaged Aortic Valve which is now listed as a rating of Moderate to Severe which is the same rating of the Focal Left Ventricular Apical Wall Defect....

Plaintiff maintains that he was given a physical examination at RCC and "was told I would not be given any access to a Cardiologist at this time and would be forced to wait and suffer without needed proper medications even thoe it is a known fact within my medical file that I have already had numerous cardiac events as heart attacks...." Plaintiff contends that he is "at risk of a Major Heart Attack and even Death due to the lack of needed surgery and ongoing cardiac care." Plaintiff further states that he has recurring chest pain "for which I must now take a time release nitrate based medication of Isosorbide DiNitrate 20mg x2x2 daily."

Plaintiff contends that the denial of medical care violates the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. He also states that it has caused him and his wife mental anguish. As relief, he seeks compensatory and punitive damages and injunctive relief.

In the amended complaint, Plaintiff states that he was "given a consultation with a cardiologist at the University of Kentucky's Gill Heart Institute on December-1st-2014; whereas the M.D. ordered a follow-up Echocardiogram Stress Test for a determination of when it would be best to schedule me for the needed Aortic Valve Replacement Surgery...." He states that he was transferred from NTC to KSP on December 8, 2014. He states that the medical staff at KSP disregarded his "past standing medical orders." He states that he had been "stair restricted" because of heart and other health problems and required the use of a cane when having to walk long distances due to bulging discs. He states, however, that at KSP he was required to walk up and down stairs daily and that walking canes were not allowed. He also states that he was not given his prescribed medications.

Plaintiff further alleges that "there was some retaliatory motive involved" with his transfer to KSP, a high-security prison. He states, "As I see it I was sent to KSP instead of KSR as an adverse action in part to assist the defendant in this case and to lash out at me due to another case where the KDOC is the named defendant #5:14CV-424-KKC, currently on file in the eastern district federal court in Lexington." He further contends that he was transferred to KSP in a "fully conspired effort to eliminate a problem, ME!"[2] Subsequent to the filing of the motion to amend, Plaintiff was transferred back to NTC on December 23, 2014.


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 factual allegations as true." Tackett v. M & G Polymers, USA, LLC, 561 F.3d 478, 488 (6th Cir. 2009) (citing Gunasekera v. Irwin, 551 F.3d 461, 466 (6th Cir. 2009) (citations omitted)). "But the district court need not accept a bare assertion of legal conclusions.'" Tackett, 561 F.3d at 488 (quoting Columbia Natural Res., Inc. v. Tatum, 58 F.3d 1101, 1109 (6th Cir. 1995)).


A. Denial of medical ...

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.