United States District Court, W.D. Kentucky, Louisville
H. McKinley, Jr., Chief Judge.
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.
SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT
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.
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,
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.
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.
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.
relief, Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages.
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
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).