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.

Collins v. Correctional Care Solutions

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

August 23, 2017



          Joseph H. McKinley, Jr., Chief Judge.

         This is a pro se action brought by a convicted prisoner. The Court has granted Plaintiff Ray Collins leave to proceed in forma pauperis. This matter is before the Court for screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. For the reasons set forth below, the action will be dismissed.


         Plaintiff initiated this action by completing a Court-supplied 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint form. On this form, he names the following as Defendants: Correctional Care Solutions, the medical provider at the institution where Plaintiff is incarcerated; St. Joseph's Hospital; and “Dr. Ellison.” Plaintiff alleges that he had a total knee replacement in 1992 at St. Joseph's Hospital in Lexington, Kentucky. Plaintiff indicates that this surgery was performed by Defendant Dr. Ellison.

         Plaintiff states that “by late 2009, the knee implant had failed becoming so loose” that a second knee replacement had to be performed at the University of Kentucky (UK) Hospital by another doctor. Plaintiff further alleges that on July 25, 2016:

the third knee replacement that Doctor O'Donald a cancer doctor at UK Hospital said that Doctor Ellison at St. Joseph's Hospital fail to warn plaintiff about the manufactured of the knee replacement about metal poisoning that his bones can get and the problem of the manufactured of the knee implant could loose up and failed and cause more injury and pain to plaintiff.

         Plaintiff then writes: “Under the care Correctional Care Solutions from prison.” Plaintiff continues:

In this lawsuit, plaintiff alleges that Defendant the manufactured of knee implant failed to warn of its failure and about causing metal poisoning to people bones. Defendants St. Joseph's Hospital and Doctor Ellison failed to warn the plaintiff about the manufactured of knee implant and the problem of metal poisoning and failure of the knee implant causing it to failed. Plaintiff had suffered three knee replacement and cause injury to his knee and bones and live in daily pain for the rest of his life.

         Plaintiff then states that he “has received Cruel and Unusual punishment by St. Joseph's Hospital and Doctor Ellison and the manufactured of the knee implant.” He also alleges that these Defendants have been deliberately indifferent to a serious medical need.

         As relief, Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages.


         Because Plaintiff is a prisoner seeking relief against governmental entities, officers, and/or employees, this Court must review the instant action under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Under § 1915A, the trial court must review the complaint and dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the court determines that it 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); and McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 604 (6th Cir. 1997), overruled on other grounds by Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (2007). 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] 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)). “[A] pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007) (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976)). However, while liberal, this standard of review does require more than the bare assertion of legal conclusions. See Columbia Natural Res., Inc. v. Tatum, 58 F.3d 1101, 1109 (6th Cir. 1995). The court's duty “does not require [it] to conjure up unpled allegations, ” McDonald v. Hall, 610 F.2d 16, 19 (1st Cir. 1979), or to create a claim for a plaintiff. Clark v. Nat'l Travelers Life Ins. Co., 518 F.2d 1167, 1169 (6th Cir. 1975). To command otherwise would require the court “to explore exhaustively all potential claims of a pro se plaintiff, [and] would also transform the district court from its legitimate advisory role to the improper role of an advocate seeking out the strongest arguments and most successful strategies for a party.” Beaudett v. City of Hampton, 775 F.2d 1274, 1278 (4th Cir. 1985).

         III. ...

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.